Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

ROYAL ALEXANDRA AND ALBERT SCHOOL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

ROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOTELS (RACIAL DISCRIMINATION)

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Attorney-General what steps he proposes to take to remove any doubt as to the illegality of

covenants or conditions in leases of inns purporting to prohibit or restrict the reception of coloured travellers.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I was not aware that such covenants are inserted in leases of inns, but if the hon. and learned Member would care to supply me with some specific examples I will look into the matter. Whilst I could not express any final opinion without seeing the terms of the particular lease, it might well be, of course, that such covenants are void as being contrary to the rules of public policy upheld by the English courts. Moreover, the legal duties falling upon an innkeeper are not affected by the colour of the traveller.

Mr. Mitchison: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not aware that in column 1433 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 6th May, 1949, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth relations referred to cases of leases of this kind as regards inns?

The Attorney-General: I can only say that no specific instances of such leases have been brought to my own notice.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Attorney-General aware that this applies not only to coloured people; and that last week I sent the Home Secretary a letter from a boardinghouse keeper to an applicant for accommodation, printed along the bottom of which is the statement:
The management reserve the right to refuse accommodation to Jews";
that the Home Secretary disapproved of that, but said he had no power to do anything about it; and will the Attorney-General do anything about it?

The Attorney-General: My answer would apply to cases of discrimination on grounds of race or colour.

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to prohibit in leases of premises to be used as hotels of any kind, lodginghouses, boardinghouses, inns or restaurants any covenant or condition requiring racial discrimination.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. I do not think that such legislation would be practicable. The courts have, under the existing law, full powers to decide whether such covenants discriminating between different classes of His Majesty's subjects are not void as being contrary to public policy.

Mr. Mitchison: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the position as regards lodginghouses and boardinghouses is substantially the same as that regarding inns?

The Attorney-General: Well, no. The lodginghouse or boardinghouse keeper is not under the same legal obligations to give accommodation to travellers.

Mr. Mitchison: Does not the Attorney-General think that it ought to be the same?

Mr. John Lewis: Is the Attorney-General aware that the provision of accommodation for coloured people is one of the greatest problems facing those who are responsible for the welfare of Colonials in this country; and that the problem does not rest in leases but in the failure on the part of those people who have accommodation to let it to coloured people?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Chocolates and Sweets

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Minister of Food why small retail shops in Brighton and Hove and small wholesalers are not receiving their regular supply of sweets, whereas the larger stores have enough sweets to sell.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): The distribution of sweets is primarily in the hands of the trade. The manufacturers gave me an assurance before we

de-rationed sweets that the increased supplies would in the early stages be distributed as fairly as possible throughout the country, based on the wholesalers' or retailers' trade under rationing.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with that answer; is he going to do nothing to help the smaller people; does he not think that the smaller people should be looked after a bit; and does he not realise that they cannot possibly carry on as long as this situation continues?

Mr. Strachey: I see no reason to accept the implication that manufacturers or wholesalers are being unfair to smaller retailers.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does my right hon. Friend now at least recognise the folly of Lord Woolton's theory that the economic troubles of this country would be removed by the removal of sweet rationing?

Mr. Strachey: There is a prima facie case for my hon. Friend's contention.

Mr. Teeling: Having put the Question to the right hon. Gentleman and intimated the problem, am I to understand that he will do nothing about it?

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Gentleman has very strongly urged me to interfere with and coerce wholesalers and manufacturers in this country, but I shall not do so until I am sure that there is a case for doing so?

Mr. Frederic Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in this House I asked him whether he was satisfied that on de-rationing sweets, there would be sufficient sweets to go round, and that he said there would be?

Mr. Strachey: I said, and I repeat, that the estimate of the manufacturers is that the present level of manufacture will satisfy the demand. We shall see whether or not that estimate proves right.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in connection with the shortages of both chocolates and sweets which are occurring in some parts of the country, he will make additional allocations of raw materials of chocolate to sweet manufacturers so as to ensure that the public are not faced with shortages in the near future.

Mr. Strachey: This has been done.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that that answer is quite misleading? Is he further aware that in order to make the rationing scheme, which is vitally necessary to the country, work, he has to give an allocation of seven ounces per person. It is no good giving a miserable half-ounce. What is the good of all this jiggering about? Do something about it.

Groundnuts

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Food how many tons of the 270,000 tons of the current year's crop of groundnuts and of the 44,000 tons of last year's crop, respectively, have been shipped to Britain; and what price he paid for them.

Mr. Strachey: The Nigerian crop of groundnuts for 1947–48 amounted to 314,000 tons, not 44,000 tons. Of these, 274,000 tons have now been shipped to this country. The current year's crop will amount to about 315,000 tons, not 270,000 tons; 28,000 tons have been shipped to this country. We are paying £55 per ton c. and f. for decorticated nuts from the 1948–49 crop and £45 per ton in respect of the 1947–48 crop.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the point of this Question is not what he has bought but what has been shipped? How many tons are lying rotting in Kano? Is he aware that I have received letters from West Africa to the effect that it is not the scheme but the Minister of Food who is nuts?

Mr. Strachey: Disregarding the brilliant wit of the hon. Member, I would point out that my reply refers to nuts shipped and not to nuts bought.

Mr. Harris: Why will the Minister not make up the short-fall from East Africa by shipping from West Africa the many thousands of tons waiting there to be removed?

Mr. Strachey: This Question refers to West Africa.

Dairy Produce (Distribution)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food in view of the fact that the policy of his Department is not to show preference to any particular area in the distribution of rationed foods, why eggs, butter

and cheese are more plentiful in Scotland than they are in the South of England, as shown by particulars which have been sent to him.

Mr. Strachey: We show no preference to any particular area in distributing these foods. Eggs have recently been more plentiful in country districts, but that is in practice unavoidable.

Sir W. Smithers: When will the Minister of Food realise that his regulations are really a mockery and that many thousands of people are breaking them, perhaps unwittingly? How many more times have I to tell him that if he breaks the law of supply and demand, that law will break him?

Mr. Mitchison: Ought there not to be some eggs, good and bad, in Orpington?

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Minister of Food whether he will review the present system of distributing eggs imported from Europe, with regard to the special needs of London and other big centres of population.

Mr. Strachey: At present we distribute all the eggs that come under my Department's control on the basis of population. If my hon. Friend will let me know precisely what he has in mind as an improvement on this system, I shall be glad to consider it.

Meat Products (Price)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the substantial increase in the price of made-up foods with a meat content that has taken place since the 4d. per lb. increase in meat prices; and if he intends to deal with any such increases found to be unwarranted.

Mr. Strachey: The principal meat products are controlled in price, and the recent increase in the price of meat will be no more than reflected in the new prices. I am making inquiries to find out whether there has been any unwarranted increase in the price of those meat products which are not controlled.

Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain districts there has been a grave disparity between the recent increase in the price of meat and the prices charged for made-up products?

Mr. Strachey: That can refer only to made-up products that are not price-controlled.

Agricultural Workers (Meat)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Food what is the meat ration of European voluntary workers who are employed as agricultural workers and of others living in camps; and how does it compare with the meat ration of British agricultural workers living in their own homes.

Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) on 2nd May.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that reply gave no satisfaction to farm workers? Will he now take into account the very important work which these men have to do in the great meat crisis? Cannot they have additional meat, instead of cheese, on the same basis as the miners?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot follow that supplementary question in relation to the original Question.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the reply to which he has just referred has caused the gravest disappointment and distress to farm workers, and is liable and probably is going to affect our output throughout the summer?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While we are not in the least anxious to cut down the meat allowances to the European voluntary workers, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the disparity between what they get in the country districts and what our own farm workers get has led to unnecessary bitterness, with all sorts of other consequences?

Mr. Strachey: If there is any such bitterness, it is because of the persistent implication that these foreign workers are receiving more than the British workers living in the same conditions. That implication is totally untrue.

Potatoes

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food what was the loss to his Department in the dealings in last year's potato crop.

Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19th January, 1949. The 1948 crop is unlikely to be cleared for another two or three months.

Sir W. Smithers: When will the Minister, who keeps on wriggling out of giving the figures of his losses, realise that State trading is dangerous, and that with State trading there are inevitably losses for the taxpayers? Is he aware that the only cure is to return to healthy competition and to——

Mr. Speaker: This Question has to do with losses and nothing else.

Sir W. Smithers: I wanted to point out that the only way to avoid losses——

Mr. Speaker: The Question is quite a direct one as to the amount of losses, and the hon. Member has received the answer.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Food why the date for the importation of early potatoes has been extended from 14th May to 24th May.

Mr. Strachey: In order to get the extra supplies which, in view of recent price increases, are evidently needed.

Mr. Marshall: Directly resulting from the Minister's reply, will he consider extending the date in Cornwall for the delivery of early potatoes, owing to the drought, of which he is no doubt aware?

Mr. Strachey: The extension of the date is precisely because we fear that the supplies of new potatoes as a whole are short.

Canned Fruit

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now give facilities to provision merchants in the United Kingdom to sell canned fruit, free of points, on the home market.

Mr. Strachey: All home-produced canned fruit, as well as imported canned grapes and canned apples, are already sold free of points. I shall take the other varieties off points as soon as I am satisfied that I can justifiably do so.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British provision merchants have now to compete against the Republic of Eire, which is selling all


kinds of canned fruits on the market without import licences and therefore without paying duty? What action does he propose to take to protect our own provision merchants?

Mr. Strachey: It is, of course, illegal for residents in this country to import from Eire without a Board of Trade licence.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is the Minister aware that provision merchants in this country are finding that the Republic of Eire are advertising their goods on the home market both by way of advertisements and circulars? Will he not, therefore, make representations to Eire?

Mr. Strachey: Perhaps the noble Lady will give me direct instances of that practice.

Mr. Erroll: In what countries are the grapes canned?

Mr. Strachey: Canned grapes come from various parts of the world, including South Africa.

Meat Ration (Change)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Food how many days' supply is represented by the present reserve of meat in this country.

Mr. Strachey: I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give this information. I am, however, glad to be able to tell the House that our stocks of carcase meat have now increased sufficiently to enable us to substitute an additional 2d. of carcase meat for the 2d. of canned corn meat at present being issued. As from 22nd May, the meat ration of 1s. 1d. will again consist entirely of carcase meat.

Mr. Drayson: Can we take it from the Minister's reply that we can anticipate an increase in the meat ration in the not-too-distant future?

Overseas Visitors (Ration Cards)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Food if he will simplify the arrangements for issuing temporary ration cards to foreigners visiting this country.

Mr. Strachey: Everything has been done to make the arrangements as simple

as possible. Overseas visitors staying in hotels do not need ration documents for the first four weeks of their stay and I am arranging that from 22nd May this arrangement will be extended to the first eight weeks of a visit. Overseas visitors who stay with friends need temporary ration cards, but these can be obtained at any food office on production of the visitor's passport or travel documents. Personal attendance is not necessary.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that overseas visitors sometimes have to wait for hours at a food office to get a card? Could not arrangements be made to issue the card at the time of landing at the port?

Mr. Strachey: I think that would be difficult, but the overseas visitor does not have to attend a food office. I agree about the great importance of making the visits of people from overseas as agreeable and as easy as possible.

Overseas Food Corporation (Report)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what period will be covered by the first annual report of the Overseas Food Corporation; and when he expects that this will be published.

Mr. Strachey: The report of the Overseas Food Corporation will cover the period from the establishment of the Corporation on 16th February, 1948, to the end of their first financial year on 31st March, 1949. In accordance with the normal practice of large commercial undertakings the report will be published within a reasonable number of months' time of the end of the period to which it refers.

Mr. Hurd: As the Minister is going to Tanganyika next month to see what is happening to the groundnuts scheme, would he, simultaneously with the Corporation report or before the Summer Recess, let us have the benefit of his second thoughts?

Mr. Strachey: When I return from Africa, I shall be willing to make a statement if the House so desires.

Captain Crookshank: What does the right hon. Gentleman consider "a reasonable number of months" to be?

Mr. Strachey: The usual commercial practice of large undertakings is within six months, I think.

Captain Crookshank: Then we shall not be able to get a Debate before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Strachey: Not necessarily on the annual report, but no doubt an occasion can be provided.

Polish Confectionery (Import)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food the quantities of boiled sweets and other confectionery now being imported from Poland.

Mr. Strachey: Under the trade agreement with Poland private imports of £60,000 worth of confectionery will be permitted during 1949.

Mr. Hurd: If the Poles have the sugar to spare, should not we buy it from them, rather than manufactured sweets?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I think that in this case, and taking the agreement as a whole, this was a reasonable arrangement.

American Pork

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Food whether he now has any further statement to make on his purchase of pork in the United States of America.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that statements have appeared in the Press on this matter? Can he explain where he is getting the additional meat to increase the fresh meat ration?

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member's Question refers to an additional purchase of meat. This is part of the additional supplies we have, of course.

Jam-Making Sugar

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Minister of Food whether he is now in a position to make greater supplies of sugar available to housewives for making jam.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. We are already giving 7 lb. in jamming bonuses this year as compared with 5 lb. last year, and we have also increased the weekly ration from 8 to 10 oz. I should have thought

that any future improvement of supplies ought to be used for the domestic ration.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that housewives use less sugar for making jam than jam factories do, and that if he would give more sugar to housewives and less to the factories he would achieve an overall economy?

Mr. Strachey: It is partly for that reason that we have increased supplies of jamming sugar to housewives.

Mr. David Renton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting the English language to its traditional use instead of inventing absurb jargon, such as "jamming bonuses?"

Mr. Strachey: "Jamming sugar" is a term very frequently used by housewives, and is a very sensible term.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the alleged increase of sugar to a large number of housewives who grow their own fruit and want to make their own jam, results in considerably less sugar going to them than they had before the alleged increase?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, on the average it results in an increase.

Commander Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the waste of the fruit itself?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOAP SUPPLIES

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Food if he will now make a statement regarding the de-rationing of soap.

Mr. Strachey: The soap ration was increased by one-sixth as from 30th January. What we are now doing, from 22nd May, is to allow competition between manufacturers within the limits set by the present ration. We have not the raw materials to do any more at present.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he may be able to take soap completely off the ration?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I cannot speculate about future rationing changes.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Sea Passages (Jamaica)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Transport what degree of priority is exercised by Government Departments for sea passages from Jamaica to this country; and whether he will give the figures for the May voyage of the "Ariguani."

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): By arrangement with the shipping companies concerned, 50 per cent. of the passenger accommodation from Jamaica to this country is being allotted to Service personnel, 25 per cent. to Colonial Government passengers, and 25 per cent. to other civilians. I understand that the accommodation on the "Ariguani," which sails on 21st May, will have been allotted in these proportions.

Commander Noble: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction in Jamaica about these priorities, which are often taken up at very short notice with the result that someone who may have booked months ahead is put off at the last moment?

Mr. Barnes: I am aware of the difficulties, and I have been making arrangements with the Australian Government for the "Georgic" to pick up the backlog.

Cambridge Arterial Road

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to accede to the request of the Edmonton Borough Council for a speed limit on a section of the Cambridge arterial road.

Mr. Barnes: Traffic conditions on this road have been thoroughly investigated in recent months, and I am considering the practicability of a number of measures to increase road safety which would probably be more effective than a speed limit.

London (Working Party's Report)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the delay in publication of the report of the working party on London transport, he will give details of such urgent plans for improvement as he has already approved.

Mr. Barnes: This report will be published shortly. I have not so far given approval to any of the proposals contained in it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Official Car Service

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply what figures he has available to show how much overtime is being worked from time to time by drivers and staff of the official car service.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): Overtime worked by drivers and staff of the official car service varies considerably in the car pools throughout the country. During the past six months the average overtime worked by each employee was 20 hours a month.

Mr. Erroll: Are not these figures symptomatic of the gross waste of this service, and cannot economies be effected?

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply how many new cars have been purchased for the official car service since the beginning of the year; and what was their total cost.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Thirty-seven, at a total cost of £17,064.

Mr. Erroll: As the service is already very well covered by new cars, could not these cars have been exported, instead of being added to this extravagant service?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir, these cars are essential for the running of a proper service.

Motor Industry (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the need to reduce costs in the motor industry, he will recommend to the President of the Board of Trade that the Commission on Monopolies should investigate the supply of certain types of electrical equipment, such as dynamos and starters, which at present is almost exclusively in the hands of one firm.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It is not at present intended to add to the cases which have been referred to the Commission.

Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the high cost of motor components is a severe handicap to our motor exports, and will he treat the matter as one of great urgency?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir; I fully agree with my hon. Friend's general statement.

Steel Tubes (Export)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply what are the present restrictions on the export of second-hand steel tubes; what are the reasons for these restrictions; and when will they be removed.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Steel tubes which can be used again as they are or redrawn may not be exported, owing to the present acute shortage of new tubes. The production of new tubes is increasing, but it will be some time before the restrictions on the export of second-hand tubes can be removed.

Mr. Erroll: Will the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless allow export permits for steel tubes which are not required here, and which are being kept in dumps awaiting disposal?

Mr. Strauss: The export of certain steel tubes which are not wanted in this country is permitted.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Slate Quarries, North Wales

Mr. Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister of Works whether he proposes to take any further action on the reports of the inquiries into the slate industry in North Wales.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): Most of the recommendations in these reports have already been implemented. I am awaiting proposals from the industry about research. With regard to financial assistance, I cannot add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) on 15th November.

Mr. Roberts: Is everything possible being done to reduce silicosis in this industry, which is preventing recruitment?

Mr. Key: This is one of the problems to which early attention was given.

Mr. Price-White: Are the counter proposals which the right hon. Gentleman

has received from the industry confined to research alone? Has the right hon. Gentleman received counter proposals in general terms, and if so, what has been his reaction?

Mr. Key: There is only one other point in the replies I had and that dealt with financial questions, which are being given consideration.

Clarence House

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Works whether he can give an estimate of the cost of repair and decorations to Clarence House.

Mr. Key: I have no reason to believe that the sum of £50,000 voted by Parliament for the alterations to and modernisation of Clarence House is likely to be materially exceeded.

Mr. Piratin: Will the Minister look into the statement made by the district secretary of the Associated Society of Woodworkers in order to ascertain whether it is not the case that the amount spent on repairs and decorations far exceeds the £50,000 estimate, and will he give an assurance to the House that that exorbitant sum will not be exceeded unless a Vote is presented to the House?

Mr. Key: As I have said, I have looked in this matter and I do not think there will be any material excess over £50,000.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Could the right hon. Gentleman give comparative figures for the "Daily Worker" building?

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Could the Minister tell us how many homes could have been provided for the homeless with this money?

Mr. Speaker: The Question has only to do with the estimate.

Building Restrictions

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the plentiful supply of building materials to be seen at the British Industries Fair at Castle Bromwich, he will consider a relaxation in the near future in building restrictions.

Mr. Key: The present order under Defence Regulation 56A prescribing the financial limits above which a building


licence is required expires at the end of June. The action which will then be necessary is at present under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject. But I would point out to my hon. Friend that the supply of building materials is only one of the factors to be considered and that, in any case, supplies of some building materials, notably softwood, are by no means plentiful.

Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that the buyers are so satisfied with the quality of the products and have expressed themselves in that manner, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the relaxation of the regulations that exist?

Mr. Key: I said that the prices and the supply of the materials is not the main factor to which I have to give consideration. What I have to give consideration to is the use to which the materials are to be put and the labour to be employed in using them.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Does the Minister agree that the materials supplied for the organisation of the British Industries Fair at Castle Bromwich are to the profound advantage of the export trade of this country?

Mr. Key: I should agree with that.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: In view of the dislocation that must ensue in the building industry from the Minister's indecision in this matter, will he give the House an assurance that he will make up his mind as soon as possible?

Mr. Key: I cannot agree that any dislocation has resulted.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Miners' Concessionary Coal

Mr. John Foster: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what was the amount of free coal and coal at reduced prices, respectively, issued to workers at the coalface, other workers and staff and management, respectively, during the year 1948; and the total value of such concessionary coal.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): The provisional figure for the quantity of concessionary coal made

available during 1948 is 4,990,000 tons. The further detailed information requested is not available.

Supplementary Petrol Allowances

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what considerations are taken into account by his Department when deciding to overrule the recommendation of another Ministry for an extra allocation of petrol; and why he has refused an extra allocation for Messrs. Evershed of Brighton although the application was endorsed by the Ministry of Food.

Mr. Gaitskell: The firm is already receiving supplementary allowances for its cars at the maximum of the appropriate scale and I could not agree to give the firm more favourable treatment than other firms in a similar position.

Mr. Marlowe: Is not this a crazy way of doing things? If the Ministry of Food recommended this as being essential in the interests of the distribution of food, on what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman override the Ministry of Food and say it is not essential?

Mr. Gaitskell: I would not agree that the Ministry of Food recommended that extra petrol was essential for the distribution of food. It is perfectly true that they recommended it should be given, but I have to take account of the needs of other users of petrol as well as those in the food distributive trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — JERUSALEM (CONCILIATION PROPOSALS)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects that the report of the Conciliation Commission on the problem of Jerusalem will be presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bevin): The Conciliation Commission was instructed by the Assembly Resolution of 11th December last to present its proposals for Jerusalem to the Fourth Regular Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which is expected to meet in September next.

Sir P. Hannon: While the whole Christian world will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he is doing in this matter, will he urge the Commission to take every step to see that the Holy Places are safeguarded in the future?

Mr. Bevin: That has been our policy.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Have the United Nations any means of imposing their will in regard to Jerusalem if either of the parties declines to accede to the recommendations of the Commission?

Mr. Bevin: They have the means, but up to now they have not shown any desire to exercise them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BULGARIAN LEGATION (NOTE)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has made to the Bulgarian Note of protest concerning the demand of His Majesty's Government for the recall of M. Bogomil Todoroff, Third Secretary of the Bulgarian Legation.

Mr. Bevin: No reply has been made.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Does not my right hon. Friend feel, on looking back, that it is rather provocative to regard the withdrawal of a diplomatic representative merely as a sort of tit-for-tat?

Mr. Speaker: The question did not ask whether any action was provocative or not.

Mr. Platts-Mills: I merely wanted to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not think that this kind of thing tends to exacerbate quite unnecessarily the unhappy feelings between our two countries?

Mr. Bevin: No, I think my action is perfectly right.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Berlin Air Lift

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why it is proposed to continue the air lift to Berlin after the date on which it has been agreed on both sides that all existing restrictions on transport into and out of the city shall be lifted.

Mr. Bevin: I would refer the hon. Member to the remarks I made on this subject in the course of my statement on 5th May. I indicated then that the air lift would continue in operation until the situation had been further clarified. It is particularly important to convey supplies to Berlin by air as well as by surface routes in order to restore stocks in the city to a satisfactory level as quickly as possible.

Mr. Platts-Mills: As the Americans have had the decency to recall General Clay, would it not rather help to ease the situation if we played our part and assisted by calling off the air lift?

Mr. Bevin: No, sir. I am a trade unionist, and I never call off the strike until I am sure there is no victimisation.

Captain Marsden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what way he proposes to show the appreciation of this House for the part played by civil aviation in the Berlin air lift.

Mr. Bevin: I am grateful for this opportunity of paying tribute to the contribution which the British civil air charter companies have made to the success of this great operation. No less than 26 of these companies have participated in the air lift at one time or another during the past 10 months. Official figures provided by the Air Ministry show that almost a quarter of the total supply tonnage borne to Berlin by British aircraft operating in the air lift was carried by these charter companies. Another fact which is perhaps not sufficiently known is that the entire quantity of liquid fuels, including petrol, diesel oil and kerosene which the Western sectors of Berlin have received by means of the air lift, was carried in British civil aircraft. In the month of April, for example, supplies of this kind amounting to over 400 tons per day were carried in a fleet of civil air tankers specially adapted for the purpose. I feel sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish me to express their thanks for what has been done by the crews and staffs of these civil companies who have so ably assisted the Service organisations in the achievement of the air lift.

Captain Marsden: I rise only to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his broad


expression of appreciation for the work done.

Mr. Mikardo: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the charter companies will greatly value this statement as a supplement to the very considerable profits they have made out of the operation?

I.L.O. (Participation)

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken in drafting the Occupation Statute, Clause 2 (c), to ensure that Western Germany under a Western German Government will not be debarred from full participation in the International Labour Organisation.

Mr. Bevin: Careful consideration was given in the drafting of the Occupation Statute to the desirability of facilitating Western Germany's participation in the International Labour Organisation and other Specialised Agencies in relationship with the United Nations. My hon. Friend will appreciate the necessity for reserving to the Occupation Authorities powers in the field of foreign affairs, including international agreements and conventions. Subject to this, it should be possible for Western Germany to participate in the work of the I.L.O. to the fullest extent consistent with the Constitution and the established constitutional practices of the Organisation.

Mr. Hynd: Does that mean that Western Germany would only be represented by the Occupation Powers in the I.L.O. when she becomes a member, and does not my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that there should be any sweated labour in Germany? In the interests of British and other competitors with Germany, is it not equally important that there should be equitable conditions of employment, and, therefore, costs in Germany, and will he ensure that Germany is directly represented as quickly as possible?

Mr. Bevin: I can assure my hon. Friend that Germany will be represented as quickly as possible, but we have the transition stage to go through, and I have to take account of the constitution of the I.L.O. I am trying to take every possible step to associate the German people with the International Labour Organisation, but the acual steps that have to be taken will be rather tentative at the beginning.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORMOSA

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of recent happenings in China, His Majesty's Government will reconsider the position of Formosa under the Cairo Agreement in order that the surplus population and industries of Hong Kong may be transferred there.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Formosa was actually offered to Britain in 1895 before the Japanese took it over? Does he further realise that Hong Kong cannot go on absorbing the Chinese and others, and if these people want the protection of the British why not allow them to have it in Formosa?

Mr. Bevin: I think my predecessor in 1905 was a very wise statesman in not taking it over.

Mr. Teeling: Eighteen ninety-five.

Mr. Bevin: In 1895 then. I confess I have not looked it up. I hope I am keeping up the tradition of the Foreign Office in being as wise now. I cannot agree with the hon. Member in the proposal which he now makes.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of recent happenings in China, would the right hon. Gentleman consider taking the very sensible step of making direct diplomatic contact with the liberation forces in China, and then there would be no need to worry about Formosa?

Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his reply to me suggests that he is not taking the question of Formosa very seriously? It is not handed back yet to China and there is likely to be great trouble about it in the near future.

Mr. Bevin: I have given serious consideration to Formosa, and I think the hon. Gentleman's Question was rather startling. In reply to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I do not think what he asked has anything to do, with the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S FUND

Mr. Bechervaise: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the proportion of needy children who are being relieved from the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund.

Mr. Bevin: The Children's Fund estimate that they are giving extra food to approximately 4½ million children in Europe and the Middle East. Aid is also being given in the form of wool and leather, which the countries concerned turn into clothing and shoes for children.

Mr. Bechervaise: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that that is a very small proportion of the needy children requiring aid?

Mr. Bevin: I recognise that fact, and Great Britain has made as good a contribution as she possibly can in this matter.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that these 4½ million children are only a quarter of the estimated number of children who are in desperate need in Europe at the present time, will my right hon. Friend consider trying to find some way of increasing the Government's contribution to this fund in order that the millions of American dollars which have been pledged should be matched by the much smaller sums from Europe, and not be lost?

Mr. Bevin: That point arises on the next Question.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does the number given include children in Eastern as well as in Western Europe?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

Mr. Bechervaise: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the financial position of the United Nation's International Children's Emergency Fund; and what steps are being taken to ensure that its work can be carried on.

Mr. Bevin: It is understood that the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund has now allocated all the funds at its disposal to continuing its present programme of feeding, clothing

and medical aid and that, unless Governments contribute further to the fund before the end of June, thus releasing further matching funds from the remaining Congressional appropriation of 20 million dollars, then the organisation will have to cease its operations by the end of this year. It is understood that a general appeal has been issued for further contributions.

Mr. Bechervaise: In view of the past generosity of Australia and Canada, who have provided far more funds than we have, and also the generosity of America, will not the British Government make a more substantial contribution in order to save this fund?

Mr. Bevin: That matter is under consideration at the present moment.

Mr. Tolley: Would my right hon. Friend consider inviting the Soviet Union, who are responsible for this terrible situation, to do at least something for these unfortunate children?

Mr. Bevin: We are trying to interest every Government in the matter. It is the worst thing in the world to let children or anyone else suffer. The tragedy of all this business is that poor unfortunate people who have no power are the victims of all this business.

Mrs. Florence Paton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many people in this country who are very concerned at the thought that this country might not take part in this work and who regard this work as one of the most beneficent things that the United Nations are doing? I urge the Foreign Secretary to keep this fund going.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that substantial sums were sent to China during the war by the Lady Cripps fund? Would it not be a good gesture to bring the nations together in continuing that fund, when there is so much suffering?

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend give some hope to the House that the British Government will take the initiative by seeing that the balance of the money needed is raised, in order to enable the fund to continue after 1949?

Mr. Bevin: I will not express hopes until after the Chancellor of the Exchequer returns from his holiday.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (REPARATIONS)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the payment of reparations by Japan.

Mr. Bevin: The statement on this subject made in the Far Eastern Commission on 12th May by the United States representative is at present being studied and I am not yet in a position to comment.

Mr. Teeling: Do I understand that the statement was issued in the United States without any previous consultation with the British Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING

Brigadier Head: asked the hon. Member for West Walthamstow, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether the Committee's receipts during the year 1949–50, if continuing at their present level, will suffice to cover, while the House is sitting, expenditure at its present level.

Mr. McEntee: It is difficult to know what is meant by "their present level," either in relation to the receipts or to expenditure. Receipts and expenditure vary widely from week to week, but receipts for this year to date show a considerable decrease on the previous three years, and an estimate of expenditure does not show a similar decrease. Whilst it is not possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy what the future receipts or expenditure will be, it would appear that unless an improvement takes place receipts will not cover expenditure for the year 1949–50. It is because these conditions have existed for many years that my Committee recently issued its Special Report, and I respectfully draw the attention of Members particularly to the last four paragraphs of that Report.

Brigadier Head: Is the hon. Member aware, in view of the Chancellor's remarks regarding Supplementary Estimates and in view of the gradual falling off of the receipts, that the Committee is facing bankruptcy?

Mr. McEntee: I am quite sure that the Chancellor himself will be able to take care of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — H.M.S. "AMETHYST"

Commander Maitland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he has any further statement to make regarding H.M.S. "Amethyst" and her ship's company.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): No, Sir. The "Amethyst" and her crew are still safe. The vessel has remained unmolested.

Commander Maitland: Bearing in mind the great interest which is taken in this matter, and the anxiety that exists, will the Minister pledge himself that he will keep himself and the House informed about what is happening?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, most certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERHARDT EISLER (ARREST)

Mr. Paget: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the arrest of Herr Eisler on the Polish ship "Batory."

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I am informed that on 14th May a United States Embassy representative applied to a Southampton magistrate for a warrant for the arrest of Gerhardt Eisler, who was on board the s.s. "Batory," anchored in Cowes roads, on the ground that he had been convicted in the United States of perjury, that perjury was an extraditable offence under the Extradition Treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States, and that he had as an appellant broken his bail. The Southampton magistrate decided to issue a warrant and it thereupon became the duty of the police to execute it.
Two Southampton police officers, accompanied by two Scotland Yard officers, accordingly boarded the ship in Cowes roads and informed the master that they had a warrant for the arrest of Eisler. Two Polish consular officials who were on board the ship protested against the arrest on the ground that Eisler was under the protection of the Polish Government. The police officers asserted their right and duty to execute the warrant, but offered to delay execution, provided that


the master would give an undertaking that the ship would remain in Cowes roads, until this afternoon in order that the matter might meanwhile be further considered. This offer was not accepted and the police proceeded to execute the warrant. Eisler resisted arrest and was carried off the ship by police officers and lodged in Southampton police station.
Eisler appeared before the Southampton magistrates this morning and was remanded forthwith to Bow Street Police Court, where applications for extradition are dealt with.

Mr. Paget: May we take it that the arrest of Herr Eisler does not involve any departure from the British principle that we do not extradite for offences of a political character, since the question as to whether it is of a political nature, which is partly a matter for the magistrate and partly for the discretion of the Home Secretary, does not arise until the facts have been investigated by the magistrate? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that these matters of civil liberties are of equal importance whether the request comes from the East or the West?

Mr. Ede: As far as the last part of the supplementary question is concerned, I agree with the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend. With regard to the other part, we must await the receipt and the investigation of the evidence before any decision can be made.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the suggestion of perjury arises from the fact that when Herr Eisler was an anti-Nazi refugee and——

Mr. Speaker: Whether it is perjury or not is a matter which is sub judice. That is now before the courts and we must not raise it here.

Mr. Gallacher: Then I will ask another question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Home Secretary aware that it is a tragic situation when Ministers who claim to be Socialists are responsible for such a shocking and shameless affair as the treatment of this anti-Nazi refugee? Is there any limit to the depths of degradation to which this country can be drawn at the command of America?

Mr. Speaker: That is an improper insinuation.

Mr. Gallacher: It is not an improper insinuation; it is God's truth. [Interruption.] Quiet, you fellows—
This England …

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May we assume from what the Home Secretary has said that, irrespective of the technical issue as to whether it is an extraditable offence or not, if Herr Eisler claims to be a political refugee the Home Secretary will accord him the traditional right of asylum accorded political refugees by this country?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. It is not what the man claims to be; it is what the facts reveal him to be.

Mr. Piratin: In the first place, may I ask the Home Secretary whether, when the magistrate at Southampton granted a warrant for this man's arrest, he was satisfied that there was a prima facie case of perjury——

Mr. Speaker: One must not challenge the magistrates on whether there is a prima facie case of perjury. The matter has now gone to Bow Street and the whole thing is sub judice. The only thing which may be criticised is the action of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Platts-Mills: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to your last Ruling, may I draw your attention to the terms of the Act on which our Treaty with the United States of America is based? It provides quite expressly that a matter of this sort is never in a sense sub judice so as to take it out of the purview of the Home Secretary, who, as the Act expressly provides, may at any time intervene when he thinks a matter is a political matter and may stop all proceedings almost as though he were the Attorney-General. I am referring to Section 7 of the Act of 1876, which no doubt you have in mind, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot carry all these Acts in my head. What the hon. Member says may be right or it may be wrong. However, I am certain that it is quite wrong for us to discuss a matter which is now before the courts, and that is my Ruling.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Further to that point of Order. As the matter is of great importance to everyone in this House who is concerned with the tradition of Great


Britain in protecting political refugees—[Interruption.]—on this side and I believe some on the other side as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Czechoslovakia."] There is not a single example of this sort of business in Czechoslovakia. Can hon. Members opposite give a single example? [Interruption.] If I may proceed with the point of Order, before you make your Ruling as to whether this is sub judice or not, Mr. Speaker, may I read you the terms of Section 7 of the Act, which runs as follows:
If the Secretary of State is of opinion"—
I interpolate by saying not as result of evidence before the magistrate necessarily but on any grounds at all—I will show why that is the proper construction in a moment—
that the offence is one of a political character, he may, if he thinks fit, refuse to send any such order"—
that is, the order which precedes the arrest, and therefore it does not give the possibility even of the opinion of the Home Secretary being based on evidence before the magistrate because this anticipates the proceedings—
and may also at any time order a fugitive criminal accused or convicted of such offence"—
that is, an extraditable offence—
to be discharged from custody.
That being so, I have no doubt that you, Mr. Speaker, would say that discussion in this House as to the political content of this man's alleged offence, or the offence for which he has been convicted in America, is really not debarred by the fact that at some time in the future some magistrate or some other court may consider the matter. I ask you to say that all questions as to this man's clearly publicised claim that he is a political refugee should be open to the consideration of the House with a view to our trying to induce the Home Secretary to take the obvious and honourable step of discharging the man at once.

Mr. Ede: Further to that point of Order. I would point out that this arrest was not effected under that machinery. This man was not arrested as a result of my order——

Mr. Platts-Mills: I accept that, of course.

Mr. Ede: —but under an alternative procedure where the responsibility is on the magistrate.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Is not my right hon. Friend clear that, under whatever procedure the man may be held in custody, the duty of the Home Secretary, if he thinks fit, is to order his release at any stage of the proceedings as soon as he is satisfied that the crime put against him by the Yankees—I beg pardon—the requesting country is of a political character?

Mr. Ede: I have certain very extensive powers, and very responsible duties to discharge, under this Act, but I must have the evidence in front of me before I can make up my mind.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Home Secretary explain how it was that several officials from the United States Embassy were present with the police on board this boat, what their function was and why they were allowed to intimidate the captain of the vessel in order to get Mr. Eisler arrested?

Mr. Ede: Certain United States Embassy officials laid the information before the magistrate and they went to the ship. As far as I know, there was no intimidation of the captain of the ship. I have no evidence before me to indicate that.

Mr. Zilliacus: May I ask the Home Secretary, in view of the terms of Article 6 of the Anglo-American Extradition Treaty which specifically exempts from the terms of the Treaty those whose crime consists of a political offence, whether he will give an assurance that he will decide on the basis of that Article before there is any question of deporting Mr. Eisler to the United States?

Mr. Ede: I shall have to discharge my duties as soon as I can get the evidence. When the evidence comes, I shall examine it most carefully and make up my mind on the decision I ought to take, but at this stage I will not do anything that indicates a prejudgment as to what the evidence will be when it comes.

Mr. Tolley: Is my right hon. Friend quite satisfied that the request by the American Government and the arrest of this man is valid under international law?

Mr. Ede: That is a thing which the magistrate to whom the application was made had to decide. I was not asked to arrest this man.

Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that the procedure as to arrest would have been exactly the same if this had been a Polish request affecting somebody on an American ship?

Mr. Ede: Yes, the procedure would have been exactly the same if the Polish Government had gone to the magistrate instead of asking for an order from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gallacher: Further to a recent answer of the Home Secretary, are we to take it from that answer that if any citizen of this country lays information about another, he has a right to go with the police and to participate in the arrest of the one against whom he has laid the information?

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman is not to understand that. The United States officials went on the ship on their own responsibility and not on the responsibility of the police.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the ruthless attitude adopted towards this well-known anti-Nazi political refugee, the attitude towards the officers of the ship, the fact that American officials were allowed to accompany the British officers aboard this Polish vessel and to use threatening language to the ship's officers and consular officials, and the necessity of getting

further explanations on this matter, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I could not possibly accept that Motion. What is quite definite and urgent is that the matter should be tried before the courts and not in the House of Commons. Therefore, I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order——

Mr. Speaker: I have refused the Motion. That is quite definite and I do not want to argue it.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not dealing with what is coming up in the courts, I am dealing with what happened on the ship, which has nothing to do with what is coming up in the courts. I want to know why they were so ruthless towards this man, why were the American officers allowed or taken on board when the Polish officers did not want them and the Polish consul did not want them. The British must have taken them on. Why did they take them on?

Mr. Speaker: That can be found out later by Question and answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Ireland Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

IRELAND BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.)

3.34 p.m.

The Chairman: It might be convenient if the Amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden)—in page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning, to "that," in line 6, and insert—
(1) It is hereby recognised and declared—
and in line 10, leave out "declares"—were discussed together with the Amendment in the name of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)—in line 12, leave out "affirms."

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to be slightly stupid, but I did not hear you clearly, Major Milner. It is quite plain in my mind that your suggestion about the first of the two later Amendments is wholly unobjectionable, but I am not quite so certain about the one standing in my name.

The Chairman: I have considered that matter and I think the hon. Member's Amendment can be discussed quite usefully under the same heading.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out from the beginning, to "that," in line 6, and to insert—
(1) It is hereby recognised and declared—
(a).
These Amendments are designed to effect a small alteration in the language used in the first Clause. The effect of the first, if adopted, will be to remove the words "Parliament hereby recognises and declares" and to substitute in the opening words "It is hereby recognised and declared." The effect of the subsequent Amendments will be to make the Clause conform to those opening words.
So far as I can ascertain, the change is mainly one of form. It is to eliminate a somewhat unusual form of words in the Clause and to substitute what I am certain the Attorney-General will agree is the more usual form of words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that on Second Reading my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell

Fyfe) told the House that he had so far been unable to discover any precedent in any statute for the form of words here proposed. I have no doubt that during the interval the Attorney-General will have fortified himself with any precedents there may be, and I am sure that the Committee would be grateful to him for inviting its attention to the precedents.
At the moment, therefore, I put the argument merely on the basis that this is an unusual form of words and that, unless strong reason to the contrary can be shown, it is expedient from every point of view to use the language of the ordinary statutes. I am certain that is a proposition which the Attorney-General will not seek to controvert, and therefore I propose to address myself to the point whether there is or is not here any special and peculiar circumstance which will justify a departure from the normal language of Acts of Parliament.
On the Second Reading of the Bill the Lord President of the Council sought to reply to arguments which had been raised on this point, and as there the Lord President gave what I understood to be the Government case for this unusual language, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I read what he said:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked, as did the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, what was the reason for the somewhat exceptional drafting of the opening words of Clause 1 of the Bill. There is no hidden motive behind it. The reason the Bill does not start with the customary words, "It is hereby declared," is that it was desired to make it quite clear that the initiative was not that of our own Parliament at Westminster and that what this Parliament is doing in the first place is to recognise that which already exists de facto as a result of the action of the Parliament in Dublin. Therefore, we thought that the usual operative phrase would have been inept and, as I have said, the phrase which has been used has no hidden significance. As a matter of sound I think the words have a rather pleasant ring about them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1957.]
I do not doubt that the second argument was not intended very seriously, since the sound of language is surely not a consideration which normally actuates the Parliamentary draftsman. Indeed, there are many precedents to the contrary on that. I am perfectly certain that the Clause was not put in merely to suit the musical ear of the Lord President of the Council.
The argument, therefore, seems to be that this form of words was used because the initiative in this matter was taken not by His Majesty's Government or by this House but by another Government and another legislature in Dublin. I should like to examine that argument because if it has any validity it surely must go a great deal further. The Prime Minister told us on Second Reading that the whole reason for the Bill was the action taken by the Irish legislature and the Irish Government. Therefore, if this form of words is to be used in this Clause it would seem logical that it should be used throughout the Bill, but that course is not followed.
In any event, that is surely a fallacious argument. What we are now doing in this Bill is not merely to follow the initiative of another Government. We are, on the initiative and advice of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, seeking to alter the law of England. After all, that is the only law which we in this House are competent to amend or to vary. Therefore, the reason which the Lord President of the Council gave for this departure from the normal form of words is a very flimsy reason and one quite inadequate to sustain this very substantial departure from the ordinary language of Acts of Parliament.
Accepting therefore, the proposition that such a departure could only be justified by a real and substantial reason, it seems that no such substantial reason has been produced. If in the drafting of statutes we are to go behind the ordinary form of words and seek to vary the drafting of the statute because, of the varying motives which may have induced the Government to introduce it, then, indeed, we are opening the door for a wild variety of legal language. After all, we are not concerned with that. We are concerned with the Government's proposal to this House and this country to vary the law of England. I submit that it is quite wrong to alter that normal language merely because one of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill may be the action of another Government, and it seems to me that this reason for departing from the ordinary phraseology is quite inadequate.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): There really is very little in

this matter and I must confess that I cannot arouse any great enthusiasm for the Amendment or, indeed, against it. This is purely a drafting Amendment. It will not alter the effect of the Bill in the slightest degree although, perhaps, if it were accepted it might slightly obscure the historical significance of the Bill. I have said that the matter is not of first-rate importance; but the particular phrase that is used in the Bill as it stands—the rather short, emphatic language—reflects the realities of the situation. It may be unusual—no doubt it is—but the Bill deals with an extremely unusual situation. It is Parliament—the King, the Lords and the Commons together—who are in fact recognising that Southern Ireland—I am using a neutral phrase for the moment—has taken the initiative and made itself a republic outside the Commonwealth. It recognises that fact; it does not make any law in regard to it. Parliament then goes on to declare that certain circumstances must follow from that initiative. That seems to us to be right.
3.45 p.m.
To adopt the wording of the first Amendment would apply the word "recognise" not only to the position of the Irish Republic but also to the position of Northern Ireland; and that, we think, would be quite inept. In relation to the Amendment in the name of the Senior Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), on the whole we think it is more proper to use the word "affirm" and so to distinguish between "declaring" that Northern Ireland is at present part of the United Kingdom and "affirming" as a matter of Parliamentary policy hereafter, that she will always remain so, subject to her own Parliament. On the whole, therefore, I invite the Committee to say that, there being no sinister significance whatever in this phrase—I do not think that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggested that there was—the case is one where it is not inappropriate to use the form of words which has been adopted in the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the Committee what are the precedents for the phrase "Parliament hereby recognises"?

The Attorney-General: I do not know that there are any precedents. I said that the situation is an unusual one. Indeed, it may be said to be an unprecedented one. That is why we are using appropriate language, as I suggest, to deal with it.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope the Treasury Bench will think again about this matter. If they admit, as they already have, that there is not very much in it from their point of view, I hope they will consider whether they ought not to be indulgent to those of us from whose point of view there is something considerable in it. It really is not fair, if I may say so with respect to the learned Attorney-General, to say that the factors now present are new and that that is an argument for using new language. It surely is not only a draftsman's rule, but a constitutional rule and a rule of commonsense, that the same formulae for either making law clearer or changing law should always be used, and that new formulae should not be introduced except when what is being done is new—I do not mean when the factors to which it is being done are new, but when what Parliament, or the King in Parliament, is doing is new. It surely can only be then that it is reasonable to introduce a new formula. I think that if I stop there that is ground enough why the words we propose should be preferred.
Secondly, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a little clearer to us what he means by saying that the effect of the word "affirm" instead of "declare" is to make it plain that this is a matter of Parliamentary policy. That is a collocation of vocables, to which I really find myself not capable of attaching any significance. If there is any significance that can be attached to them, it ought to be made plain to us.
This is a declaratory statute. I am not quite sure what Parliamentary policy is, but I am quite sure that to affirm Parliamentary policy in a statute is something certainly that has not been done for many generations, not since Parliament has been what we mean by Parliament, although possibly in the fifteenth century; that would be an interesting point upon which I should very much like to debate at length with the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he would also like it.
I dare say the rest of the Committee might not feel this was the most suitable opportunity for that. But, unless we are to go right back to the fifteenth century, I do not know what it means to say that using the word "affirms" makes this matter of Parliamentary policy, something which it is desired to be done, in contradistinction to the declaring it to be the law, which is what naturally a declaratory provision in a statute would do and what the Bill as drafted would appear, if it does anything at all, to be setting out to do. That is another reason why I would suggest to him that our words should be followed.
There is a third reason. Only two grounds have so far been suggested why this new formula should here be imported into our practice. One I do not think I have heard used in this Chamber, but I have heard it used outside. It is that there is no distinction at all and that this makes no difference whatever. That clearly is not a good reason. It cannot be good arguing, or good constitutional practice, to alter a formula more time honoured than ever John of Gaunt was, if you mean to say exactly the same as would be said by a consecrated formula. I think everyone in the Committee would agree that that argument cannot stand up.
The only other argument—if "argument" is the proper Parliamentary word to apply to it—is the sentence already indicated which fell from the Lord President of the Council, and that was a very odd one indeed. The Lord President of the Council said that the object of this is to show that the initiative is not with this Parliament. This is very odd. It seems to me extraordinarily odd if the normal formula is, "It is said" and then suddenly, once, after 600 years, instead of saying "It is said" you say "Postlethwaite said" and, when challenged, you say "Of course I put it that way in order to make it clear that Postlethwaite was not taking the initiative." [Laughter.] I am not being funny, it is the Lord President of the Council who is being funny. Of course humanity perhaps finds it impossible to laugh at him, and it is only when his words are repeated by others that they become risible.
That argument will not do. Not only will it not do, but it does more harm than good to him in the way I have already indicated and in a second way also. My hon. Friend the Member for


Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) stopped short with a mercifulness to the Lord President of the Council which we must all admire, morally, even if, intellectually, we thought it mistaken. The Lord President went on to say
what this Parliament"—
that is us—
is doing … is to recognise that which already exists de facto as a result of the action of the Parliament in Dublin."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1957.]
That had not been underlined sufficiently. This is a point to which I think the Committee will have to return on other Amendments—that the Bill or statute cannot recognise, or declare, or affirm, something to be law simply because it exists de facto. One can affirm, or declare, or recognise law only when it is already law. Otherwise one must make law. If in any of these Clauses beginning with such words as "It is declared," or "Postlethwaite declares," or "Herbert Morrison affirms"—any of these declaratory Clauses—it can be shown, and it can be shown from the Lord President's speeches and the Prime Minister's speeches and all the speeches from the Treasury Bench in defence of this Bill, that they all think all the time they are doing something to make law and doing something to make law which otherwise would not be law, in so far as they are doing that, in my submission, they are acting ultra vires and making nonsense of declaratory law and carrying the omnicompetence of Parliament beyond the responsible limit to a point of illogicality where it will not exist, if it is left there.
Although it will be necessary to return to this on other Amendments, I mention it here to show that when the Lord President found it necessary to defend this unusual form of words he was not able to do so without slipping into nonsense; and that seems another good reason why this new form of words should not become the enacting form for this Bill. The Attorney-General has admitted that from the point of view of the Treasury Bench there is not very much in this Amendment. The whole matter of the Bill is a matter of very great constitutional and national importance upon which everyone on the Treasury Bench must admit they have had the extreme of

tolerance and co-operation from those on this side of the Committee, whose prejudices are different from theirs. I therefore plead with them that if there is not very much here which they want to keep, but something considerable here which we wish to see removed, it is really one of the occasions where the House of Commons might act a little as a Council of State and we might be given what we ask for.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I wish to support the first Amendment. I found myself to some degree agreeing with the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that it was difficult to excite great enthusiasm either for the words in the Bill or for the Amendment. I suggest, however, that there are very strong reasons for not creating quite such a startling precedent as is here created by the words in the Bill. In defence of the Lord President of the Council the other night, I think that the first of the two arguments that he put forward may have been directed not so much to the words, "Parliament recognises" as to the inclusion of the word "recognises." But, in so far as that was his argument, the Opposition are giving full value to it in the words we suggest should be adopted:
It is hereby recognised and declared.
The Attorney-General said that while "recognised" was entirely suitable for paragraph (a) it was not equally suitable for paragraph (b), and I could see and appreciate what he had in mind. But that point could easily be met by his accepting the first of our Amendments and then beginning paragraph (b) with the words "It is declared." I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if we meet him to that extent and leave out "recognised" as regards paragraph (b) and have the form we suggest in paragraph (a) and if he could accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) to leave out "affirms" in line 12, that might meet the views on this side of the Committee and the small objection to our form of words suggested from the other side of the Committee would be met.
4.0 p.m.
I can appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, namely, that there was no exact precedent for what


we are doing, but, unfortunately, what we are doing may be alleged to be a precedent on some future occasion. If we are to use a wholly novel form of words, introducing in this way that "Parliament … recognises and declares," it may have an effect upon the construction of statutes of which the Attorney-General has not yet thought, and which, should the occasion arise, he would deplore. I beg him, subject to the slight change in the second Amendment which I have suggested, to indicate the Government's willingness to accept the proposal which we make.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I can quite appreciate that the Attorney-General finds little to choose between the words standing in the Clause and those in the Amendment. There is something to be said for that point of view if one looks at the words. The word "declares" is included in both. The difference is not so much a difference between "it is stated" and "Postlethwaite has stated." There is a difference between those two, but that is not the difference here. It is that Postlethwaite says something which he has no power to say. His declaration is in regard to the sovereignty of the Irish Republic, a sovereignty which has already been proclaimed and which is not a matter which this Parliament can vary. It is assuming that this Parliament retains that sovereignty. All that can properly be put in this Clause is that "it is hereby recognised," not declared. The word "declared" should be omitted both from the Amendment and the Clause itself.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I still find it difficult to follow the procedure by which a Bill begins with the normal formula "Be it enacted. …" and then proceeds, not to enact something, but to affirm. I ask the Attorney-General to consider whether that matter could not be satisfactorily regularised by making Clause 1 (1, a) read that:
The part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire shall be deemed to have ceased, as from the eighteenth day of April, ….
which recognises what has taken place in Dublin and gives the sanction of this Parliament to it, saying that the part of Ireland known as Eire shall be deemed to have ceased. Further, subsection (1, b) should simply state:
Northern Ireland remains part of His Majesty's Dominions and of the United King-

dom and in no event will Northern Ireland ….
etc. That seems to me to fall under the heading of an enactment in the way in which the present wording does not.

Mr. Logan: I am still at a loss to understand what the Attorney-General meant in regard to the definition of the language. I do not see anything about this Bill which is going to be for ever and ever, and in regard to the Amendment which we are discussing I should like to know if the phrase which it is sought to introduce is in any way a contradictory phrase, or whether we are now asked to say that the term "for ever and ever" is the solution.

The Attorney-General: I shall deal first with the point raised by the junior Burgess of Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris). He will appreciate that the words "Be it enacted" apply to the Bill as a whole, and there are, as we shall shortly see when we reach subsequent Clauses of the Bill, definite enactments which may effect changes in the law. It is not at all unusual, however, for the first Clause of a Bill to contain statements which are merely declaratory of the law, and though that may seem inconsistent with the phrase "Be it enacted" it is quite customary to do that. I should claim custom on my side in regard to that aspect of the matter.
I respectfully agree with the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) in what I think was his view—that the only real issue on these three Amendments which we are considering is whether we should substitute the words "it is" for "Parliament" in Clause 1, page 1, line 5, and whether in subsection (1, b) we should substitute "declares" for "affirms." That is the real substance of the matter which is before the Committee. In regard to what was said on that matter by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), I agree that it would be quite a simple matter to introduce on the Report stage small drafting Amendments which would aptly embody in the Bill the sense of the Amendments which stand in the name of the hon. and learned Member and his right hon. and learned Friends. Although I do not think that these Amendments


would stand up to scrutiny in the terms in which they appear in the Order Paper, it would be quite simple to make small alterations in them.
I agree also with the hon. and learned Member that it is important not to make a departure in the language of statutes as between one statute and another if the difference in language leads to any different legal result—I say legal as opposed to historical or political result. I feel quite confident that no legal implications arise from the enacting phrase which we use in page 1, line 5, as drafted. I ask the Committee to say that there is no reason why we should not suit language to facts by saying that Parliament—that is to say, the King, the Lords and the Commons, which is what Parliament means, not merely the two Houses—recognise what has been done by the Southern Irish Government, and declares the various consequences that must follow from that. I can see no danger that could be created by the use of that phrase as a precedent in legislation which we have hereafter to consider. Although I do not attach the highest importance to the matter, I ask the Committee to take the view that the phrase used in the Bill is not inapt and is suitable to meet a unique situation.
The senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) devoted some part of his speech to talking about a Mr. Postlethwaite. I cannot find that gentleman in the Bill, so I shall direct my attention to the main subject of the hon. Member's speech—the difficulty which he finds in my desire to retain in the Bill the use of the word "affirms," and his difficulty in appreciating what I mean by a statement of Parliamentary policy as opposed to the enactment of a law. That is quite a simple matter. The word "declares," as it appears in subsection (1, b) is the appropriate word to state what is the existing law. For the purpose of removing doubts or whatever the case may be, Parliament can do no more by the use of that word, than state what is the law at present. Parliament cannot, by the use of such a word, bind future Parliaments. If the word "declares" had been used to introduce the subsequent part of the Clause which states:
that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's dominions …

it would have been completely without legal effect, as this Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments.
To say:
that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's dominions … without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland,
would have no binding effect on future Parliaments.
Faced with that position, there appeared to us to be two courses open. One was for His Majesty's Ministers to say, as a declaration of Ministerial policy, that in no circumstances would they agree to the exclusion of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom without the consent of the Northern Ireland Parliament. That would have bound His Majesty's Ministers. We thought it more appropriate in these circumstances to introduce into the Bill itself a formal statement which would represent the views of all parties and would indicate what is the policy of this Parliament; this Parliament not being able to lay down the law for future Parliaments, but being at least entitled to state its own policy as it appreciates the matter at the moment. It is for that reason tht we rejected the word "declares" which would have been quite inappropriate, and substituted the word "affirms." What we are really asking Parliament to do is precisely to affirm that Parliament will not agree in the future to Northern Ireland being excluded from the United Kingdom without the consent of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I venture to suggest that it is really the appropriate word to use and I hope that the Committee will allow this Clause to stand as it is.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I thought, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman rose and from his first observation, that he was going to accept the point raised by the first Amendment. Indeed, he has frankly admitted that it would be very easy as a matter of drafting to start Clause 1 of this Bill in the same way as so many other Clauses have been started in Bills in the past:
It is hereby recognised and declared
instead of the novel method of saying:
Parliament hereby recognises and declares.
I think he ought to have met us on this point. This is a clear departure from precedent. He has given no precedent whatsoever for starting any Clause in this


way. He rightly says that the real issue on this Amendment is in line 5 of this Bill.
I would ask him to give further consideration to this matter. He could very easily meet the point raised by the first Amendment on Report, and in my belief it will not weaken the rest of that Clause in any way whatsoever. He says that there is no legal implication in the change from:
It is hereby recognised and declared
which is more normal than
Parliament hereby recognises and declares.
Though there is no legal implication, I fear that a great many people, who do not realise that the term "Parliament" includes the King, the Lords and the Commons together, will think when they look at this Act that there is something significant to be drawn from the fact that the word "Parliament" is used on this occasion, when normally Bills do not start in that way. To avoid non-lawyers falling into that error I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to meet us on this point. One does not like creating a new precedent without good reason, and in both his speeches the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given no good reason for this departure from precedent.
The Lord President said that the use of the word "Parliament" showed quite clearly that the initiative was not with our own Parliament at Westminster; but I defy anyone reading this Clause as it is to come to that conclusion, and I defy anyone to come to the contrary conclusion if the Clause starts with the words:
It is hereby recognised and declared.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there was very little in this matter. We think it is a matter of some importance and as he has indicated quite clearly that the change could be made quite easily, I beg him once again to reconsider his attitude to this Amendment. If he is not prepared to do so I fear that we shall have no alternative but to divide against him on this matter.

Mr. Pickthorn: Before the learned Attorney-General replies I wish to raise one matter. It is a small thing, but I think of consequence. I think I followed his argument about (b), although I did not

follow his distinction between "declares" and "affirms." I am prepared to admit that that may be my fault and that his distinction is right. Admitting therefore, for argument, that the word should be "affirms," it quite certainly follows, if the intention of "affirms" is to establish a policy, that the verb after it should be "shall" and not "will." I think it is a little bit of a pity that the English Parliament legislating about this matter should not follow the English rather than the Irish usage. They are the masters now. They have liquidated the Empire and destroyed the Kingdom and so on. Let them at least leave to us part of our language. I hope that the Attorney-General is going really to give us this Amendment which I think we have asked for in a conciliatory manner; but if not will he at least promise to look before a later stage and see whether on his own argument about the meaning of the word "affirms" it should be followed by the word "shall"?

4.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: Before the learned Attorney-General makes his closing speech, may I put one point? He says that he believes that the legal effect of the Clause will be the same, whether the first Amendment is adopted, or we retain the language of the Bill. I am certain he has carefully considered that, and that is his opinion. But what I want to point out to him is this. If any new form is adopted to bring about something which is quite familiar in previous Acts, then no matter how much he says he believes the effect to be the same it will not stop either laymen or lawyers from arguing that something different must be meant by a different formula and for those reasons I beg him to consider the adoption of our first Amendment.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Does not the difficulty here arise from the first Clause being in language not really appropriate to an Act of Parliament, but being more appropriate to treaties and to treaty conditions. Might not the language of the first Clause be amended to bring it into line with the language of an Act of Parliament, which this is?

The Attorney-General: The remarks made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) with regard to the liquidation of the British Empire were


unworthy even of the hon. Member, and I do not propose to follow them. I shall only a little more closely follow the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universites (Mr. H. Strauss). I hope indeed that lawyers will never cease to argue, although perhaps it might be better if they confined their argument to the courts and not so much to this Committee. Regarding the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I hate to adhere to precedent too slavishly, but I appreciate the point which he made with regard to the position of the Crown and the possible implication which the use of this phrase might have. Whilst not making any promises about the matter I will undertake to consider it on Report, and if on consideration we think that the point made by the hon. and learned Member is a sound one, and I appreciate the force of it, we shall put down an Amendment to meet the first two Amendments on the Order Paper as they now stand.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and his undertaking to reconsider the position raised on the first two Amendments, I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: The next Amendment selected is that in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie), in page 1, line 10, to leave out paragraph (b). For the convenience of the Committee I think that the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) and the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), both on the same page, might be discussed at the same time—in page 1, line 11, leave out from "Kingdom," to end of line 2, page 2; and in line 12, leave out "or any part thereof." As we had a rather long discussion on Second Reading on this very point I would venture to suggest that it might not be necessary to take it at too great length.

Mr. Pickthorn: Does that save the Amendment in line 6 for future discussion or would that fall if this Amendment falls.

The Chairman: There is no Amendment to line 6.

Mr. Hale: Does that mean that the Questions will be put to the Committee separately?

The Chairman: Yes, if hon. Members desire to divide on one or more of the points, certainly.

Mr. John Beattie: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out paragraph (b).
I do not want to embarrass any of the hon. Gentlemen who have their names on the Order Paper in support of the other Amendments mentioned by you, Major Milner, but I intend to go into the Lobby in favour of my Amendment. The subsection, the deletion of which I now move, states,
declares that Northern Ireland remains part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom and affirms that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
Why do I wish to delete those words? When I see my mother country being cut up, divided and classified as part of another country, I have every right as a representative in this House to say that at least I, as one hon. Member, shall not stand for that sort of business being carried on against the country of which I am a citizen. This Clause hands over the Six Counties in a permanent manner to a party in those Six Counties who are actually a minority in the country. Ireland is the only place I can find where a minority rule over a majority.
We have asked time after time for the people of Ireland to be allowed to decide where the Six Counties should belong. The House of Commons has never given us the privilege or the opportunity to do that. When this House was considering the position of Ireland under the 1920 Act, the then Chief Secretary said that he hoped that the position as established by that Act would only be a temporary one. Am I to live to see the day when a political party which I have supported for the whole of my life and which is now in Government, is to destroy every reasonable opportunity of bringing into being a united and undivided Ireland? That is what this subsection does. For all time the Six Counties will be kept as a perquisite of the Tories in the North-East of Ireland.
Nineteen-sixteen was the year of the Rebellion, a year when the war was on


and when the Asquith Act was left aside for the period of the war. Irishmen from North and South volunteered to go out to fight for the safety of the British Empire. What did they get when they returned? They did not get the 1914 Measure. They got an Act which was prepared on 19th May, 1916, at the dictation of the then Prime Minister, which stated that whether or not Northern Ireland decided to go in with Eire, she must not be allowed to do so. That was carrying the position too far. If that country wanted to unite, it was decided that Britain must not allow her to do so.
I wish to give a little advice to the right hon. and learned Attorney-General. It is not Southern Ireland which is now known as the Republic of Ireland. We know Southern Ireland. Southern Ireland as he was defining it comprises three and a half provinces of Ireland—three full provinces and three counties in Ulster. Those are the three counties which these same Tories deserted in 1920. They left their brothers and sisters under the control and authority of an Irish Government. Now they are claiming preservation and security for all time in the sinecure jobs which they have set up in the Six Counties, and this Labour Government is about to give them that security.
Those in charge of the Bill may think that there is a possibility some day of the Parliament of Northern Ireland coming to their real senses and meeting their brother Parliament of the Republic and deciding to unite together for the common good of the whole. I wish to say that the people who have been in control for the last 28 years will be in control for the next 50 years if we give them this Clause. They will never consent to go in to the body of Ireland and to pull their weight in Irish affairs, culture, interests and everything appertaining to the welfare of the Irish nation. They will not do that because they have no interest in Ireland. All their interests are over here in this country. Government after Government have handed it down as a legacy that Northern Ireland must not be allowed to join with the rest of Ireland, and these people are encouraged to continue the nefarious work of keeping the country divided. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nefarious work?"] Yes. If hon. Members had lived where I have lived all my life they would

not find a word in the dictionary, which they were so ably discussing some while ago, which fits the position more adequately than the word I have used.
The Atlantic Charter, the signatories of which were the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and Mr. Roosevelt, states:
Third, they respect the rights of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.
That applies as much to Ireland as to any other nation. We have been forcibly driven from our own land through the medium of an Act of Parliament passed by the British House of Commons, an Act which has been maintained by this House.
4.30 p.m.
I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, and I do not wish to prophesy, but I can say that for many years now there has been a friendly feeling between the people of Ireland and the people of this country. That feeling, one of goodwill and good wishes, was growing and developing, and we were coming to the point at which Ireland might have been able to take her place among the nations, provided that reasonable and sensible people in this House would allow her to take her place as a complete nation and not as a splintered nation. We shall never get Ireland's friendship, Ireland's support nor Ireland's co-operation while we compel part of the Irish people to live under the conditions that exist in the North of Ireland, in those Six Counties which have been cut away and "Englishised" from the 26 counties that belong to the Republic of Ireland at the present time.
This House may think that it is going to free its hands of this Irish question for the next 50 years. No, Sir. For seven hundred years politicians have been thinking that the Irish question could be dealt with and solved, and history shows how far they have actually dealt with it. No, this Irish question will still remain with Governments on all occasions, when one generation goes out and another comes in, unless the only fair and reasonable solution is adopted. If the motherland is going to be a better place than it is now, then the motherland will have to be united, and if this is a Labour Government it ought to be helping towards the achievement of that unity.
I wonder if this is a Labour Government, or if it is really such a Government as I thought it was, or as the Irish people, who have helped to build it, thought it was? The Irish people have helped to build this party into a big-hearted party, and the Government should remember that the Irish played no small part in the building up of the British Labour movement. We played a large part in 1924 in building up this movement, and we Irish were the first to send congratulations to the then Prime Minister who had just taken over the leadership of the first British Labour Government. We have played our part all along the years. Now we come to 1949 and we get this Bill presented to us with the suggestion that the Labour Government are going a step further than the previous Governments have done.
Every previous Government left the door wide open for the possibility of the two parts of Ireland coming together, and the Lord President of the Council has said that the door has not been slammed. If anyone can show me where there is a glimpse of light shining through the door in this Clause, I should be glad. Where is there any opportunity for North and South, East and West, to get together and form themselves into one nation, with a central Parliament for the whole of Ireland? All I can see in Clause 1 (1, b) is darkness, both for the Irish nation and for this Government, and I am not one who wishes to see this Government put out because of this dastardly Act which they are going to put on the Statute Book. I would rather suffer my penance and accept them before I would ask anyone to cast a vote against the Government, although they are here playing a part which the Tories like.
The Tories, deep down in their hearts, know the resentment which exists in the breasts of the Irish people in Great Britain, and they are hoping and wishing that, when the next General Election comes, the Irish question will be presented to the country and that the Labour Government will be dealt with accordingly. They will in that way court favour for the Irish vote in Great Britain, but I hope and trust that the Irish will have more sense and that they will be wiser than to follow the double-dyed villains who sit on the other side of this House.
I am going to make the last appeal to those whom I should call my colleagues, and I will always call Labour and Socialist politicians, no matter of what country, my comrades and colleagues. I am going to say this to the British Labour Government. Accept my overture on this occasion and try to do something more reasonable and fair in this Bill than Clause 1 (1, b) as it now stands, and never forget J. R. Clynes, an old and respected member of the Government's party, nor the fact that at one time the Irish voice was very pronounced in that party. Keir Hardie, one of the founders, was the friend of James Connolly, and the two pioneers, one of British Labour and the other of Irish Labour, went arm in arm and side by side to champion the cause of Labour and Labour's independence. From the point of view of the working class in Ireland, I think we are entitled to have the ear of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I had a demonstration in my division in Belfast last night, and anything up to 10,000 people were assembled there. I was afraid lest anything serious might happen, or that any word of mine might lead to a flare-up, because I know that, when a flare-up is started in the Six Counties, the losers will be the Tories. In such a flare-up, I shall be one figment which will disappear, but I am not afraid to die for the cause which I am espousing today. I went into the British Army to fight for this country, and many thousands of Irishmen and Irishwomen fought for the liberty of this country, but during the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, we did not hear much about the services of these men and women who came from the three and a half provinces below the Border.
We heard the eulogies of the protection which the Six Counties gave to this country, but what about the major question of the thousands who came from below the Border? What about the thousands of men who volunteered and did great service? I am not decrying any man from the North. I recognise that the North has a pledge of loyalty and attachment in being "King's men." They did not seriously seek to have conscription, though they came over here and asked for conscription to be applied to their country, knowing perfectly well that it could not be done. That was the reason


why they came here to ask for it; if it could have been done, they would never have come here to ask for it, because all their friends were in protected jobs.
In 1920, when the Government of Ireland Bill was before this House, the Labour Party put up Mr. J. R. Clynes to move the rejection of the Bill. The Chief Secretary, speaking for all parties at that time in this House, said this:
All of us hope that the division may be temporary only, and our arrangement has therefore been to frame the Bill in such a manner as may lead to union between the two parts of Ireland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1920; Vol. 127, c. 928–9.]
Are we progressing forward, or going backwards? All the parties in this House in 1920 declared in favour of an open door, but the party of which I myself have been a member and supporter all my life now comes forward with a closed door, with power and authority for all time.
Whatever this Government may think of the words in this paragraph which I am seeking to delete, are they aware that in the next 50 years the same people will be in government in Northern Ireland as are in it today, if they are not too old, and that if they are too old then those who are following after them will occupy the same seats under the same designation? There is not a snowball's chance in hell of anybody else getting into it. That is not democracy.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): It is not Parliamentary language either.

Mr. Beattie: Out of respect for you and for this Committee, Mr. Bowles, I withdraw that remark. I quite agree that it is unparliamentary, but it came out unknown to myself. I should have used the word "Hades"; that would have made all the difference.
I do not want this Debate to be typical of some which we have had when Irish representation has been discussed. We are not all built the same way; but we can be serious and try to be intelligent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—although sometimes it is not easy with the interruptions which come from the other side of the Committee. However, we can try. This Government will have to try to give intelligent consideration to this paragraph (b). In 1920, Parliament agreed that this was a temporary arrangement. If the initial efforts of this Govern-

ment are successful I feel that they will have a lease of life sufficient to enable them to receive the good wishes and the blessing of the Irish nation. But if the Government proceed on the lines which they are following now, there will be hostility, difficulties, trials and trouble for all concerned.
I do not want to speak for much longer; other Members wish to speak, but I want to say what I have got to say on this paragraph. This is a contentious provision which is slamming the door in my face. This is the Clause which is trying to make me an Englishman when I am not. No one can manufacture me on paper into an Englishman when I am not. I say to the Attorney-General, who has already been chastised about his use of the English language, "Do not be guilty of the offence again by calling the Republic of Ireland Southern Ireland." I say that to him in all friendliness.
4.45 p.m.
In 1918 a plebiscite of the whole of Ireland was taken, and only one-fifth were against the sovereign rights and independence of Ireland. The Home Secretary should put forward to the Governments of the Republic of Ireland and of Northern Ireland the suggestion to take a plebiscite in two parts, supervised by this House, and I should say that almost certainly the decision of the people would be——

The Deputy-Chairman: That point does not arise on this Amendment. It can be discussed on the next Amendment which I shall call.

Mr. Beattie: I was trying to make a suggestion before I sit down. I understood that we were discussing three Amendments together.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment to which I was referring is in page 2, line 2, to leave out "Parliament," and insert "people," and it is not discussable with the three Amendments with which we are now dealing.

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles. Could I seek your guidance, because I am also under a misapprehension? Do I gather that the Amendment standing in my name, in page 2, line 2, to which you have just referred, is not being discussed at this moment?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not being discussed at this moment. It will be called and it can then be discussed. It has not been called yet.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged.

Mr. Beattie: I am sure that the Government have full knowledge of the report of the Council of Civil Liberties which took great trouble to ascertain the conditions of life in the Six Counties as a result of the application of the Special Powers Act in that area. That report gave a fair and truthful summary of the everyday life of those who were in opposition to the popular party; so much, so that Cabinet Ministers in this Government placed their signatures to that report. I hope the Government will not overlook those signatures. I am sure they will not let down their own colleagues and comrades in the Labour movement in Ireland by closing the door for all time against the possibility of the motherland re-uniting the Six Counties with the rest of Ireland, thus placing Ireland as a whole under the Republic of Ireland.

Colonel Haughton: On Thursday morning, immediately after the Second Reading of this Bill, I flew to Dublin and I have been there until this morning when I flew back. I went there about business affairs but also so that I might have an opportunity to hear and to read for myself how the present situation is developing in Dublin city and in the neighbourhood. While I was there I took every opportunity of listening to the relays of speeches that were being made, of listening to the broadcasts from Athlone, and of reading, as I have never read before, the contents of all newspapers published in Dublin.
I think it is gratifying and right, and I should say it was very welcome, to notice, during that quite extraordinary meeting which was held in Dublin on Friday night, the tone of moderation which had entered the speeches made by very prominent politicans in the Republic. That was very welcome indeed, but there were two things which were invariably and equally conspicuous by their absence in every one of those speeches and in every newspaper article. The first was the complete absence of any reference to the 1920 Act, which, in its machinery, gave an opportunity, which unfortunately was never taken, for the North and South to come together. Nor was there any

mention of the 1921 Treaty, which again provided a Council to which the people in the South never elected or sent delegated members, and there was no mention made of the confirmation of 1925, confirmed by a great majority in Dublin as well as in the other Parliament. All these things were completely absent from every one of those speeches and from every one of the newspaper articles which I have read in the past four days.
The second thing about which no word was mentioned, which again strikes me as extraordinary, was that in this House, on 28th October last year, the Prime Minister in this Government gave an assurance in these words:
In the course of the recent conversations at Chequers with Ministers from Eire no discussion took place on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. The view of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has always been that no change should be made in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without Northern Ireland's free agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 239.]
The Prime Minister confirmed that on 25th November in the identical words.
What does this paragraph do? It just puts in writing what the Prime Minister told this House of Commons—no more and no less. If he and the Government, in their wisdom, think it right to affirm and to embody in an Act that which we took, and which would have been taken in any case, as a most honourable assurance, then we welcome this Clause.
I wish I could resume my seat without telling this Committee the last part and the grimmest part of this short recital of the last four days in Dublin. I heard last night that bills were out through the city. I heard they had been posted on a van and that outside the door of the house where I had been staying, enormous bills were posted—"Arm now to take the North." That is a very terrible thing. I think it is right, therefore, that the Government should reaffirm what the Prime Minister has always said to us and that it should be embodied in this way in this Act.

Mr. Bing: It is always pleasant to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman the junior Member for Antrim (Colonel Haughton), and I am particularly pleased to follow him today because he is adopting what is perhaps the right


course in this Debate—to examine the arguments which have been put forward in Dublin. After all, all the political parties there have combined to make an attack on this Bill. Let us at least examine their arguments and, if they are false, let us reject them; but do not let us just ride them off by saying it is all part of some sort of political manoeuvre. The Committee ought to recognise, I think, that probably next to the Jews the Irish are the most dispersed of all peoples and, therefore, that what we do in regard to Ireland will affect the opinion which is held of this country in the Dominions and in the United States. It is important, therefore, not only that we do justice but that we seem to do justice in the eyes of the world, and those two things are not always quite the same.
I should like to support the Amendment which is to be proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones), because it seems to me that it provides a formula which might meet the point of view of the British Government and which also might meet the point of view of the Republic of Ireland. I do not think that we, in this House, can evade our responsibilities. We cannot declare that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom and in the same breath say that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has no responsibility for its future. In the Second Reading Debate my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said:
If Irishmen themselves come together and make their own agreements, this Government will willingly consider the results."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1960.]
I am sure there is nobody in this Committee who does not endorse that point of view. But surely we have a further obligation, and that is to try to do something to create the circumstances in which a coming together is made more possible. The political parties of the Republic of Ireland all believe that this paragraph of the Bill makes a coming together more difficult. If that is so, ought we not really, on that basis, to reconsider it? Of course, it is absolutely true that this paragraph is occasioned by the repeal of the External Relations Act and by the establishment of the Republic, an Act which as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee) said, has not seriously

affected the welfare of the Irish people in any social degree."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1905.]
If this Government really wished to be vindictive, if they really wished to take advantage of Ireland, they could easily have made this an excuse for making an attack on the Irish Government and the fact that they have not done so, I think, gives the lie to the theory that this Bill is hostile to the Republic of Ireland. I would ask Irishmen as a whole to consider what would have been the attitude of the party opposite had they declared their Republic when the Conservatives were in power.
What we have to consider is not the attitude of the Government of the Republic of Ireland but the attitude of this Government, and to guide us in this respect hon. Members on this side of the House have received from the Irish Labour Party a circular. In that circular there was a reference to James Connolly. It is, I think, worth while looking to see what James Connolly said on this problem 50 years ago. Writing at the turn of the century he said:
… If you could remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the Green Flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of a Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you, she would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her usurers, through the whole army of commercialists' and individualists' institutions she has planted in this country. …
That was 50 years ago and in this country today the capitalist and the landlord is under restraint. A whole fabric of social legislation protects the man in the street at any rate from the full blast of unrestricted capitalism but, as I think the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) said on the Second Reading Debate, the Republic of Ireland has not progressed in social legislation and in the restraint of capitalism to anything like the same degree as has this country. To the ordinary man in Northern Ireland, therefore, an offer to enter Southern Ireland may merely appear to him to be an offer to work for the same employer for less wages and under worse conditions. Many workers in Northern Ireland see in the union of Ireland the greatest threat to their standard of living.
5.0 p.m.
It can be put like this. It is impossible to divorce the struggle for the abolition of partition from the struggle for social justice for the whole of Ireland. The evils of this Clause are that it enables those on both sides of the Border who are opposed to the social reforms that must be the necessary prerequisite for the union of Ireland to carry on a barren dispute over nationalism. It will perpetuate that sort of nationalism which prevents the re-union of Ireland by preventing the very problem itself from ever being discussed. So far as political mistakes are made by the political parties of the Irish Republic, I do not think it is for us to go into them, for we have no direct responsibility. Where, however, Northern Ireland is concerned, this Parliament sitting here has a direct responsibility.
It is worth while recalling, when we come to exercise that responsibility, the very wise words spoken 35 years ago by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in a speech at Bradford, which, I think, is still the classic analysis of the Irish situation. I shall have occasion a little later to refer to that speech in somewhat greater detail, but at present I would echo the warning given then by the right hon. Gentleman. He said this:
We must be careful that the honest necessities of the Ulster case do not suffer from their entanglement with Tory Party interest and intrigue.
It is very necessary, because we owe a great debt to the people of Ulster for their support in the war, for their great contribution to production and the export drive, and for the hospitality that they invariably show us and people of other countries when we go to their country. In return the least we can do is to see that everyone in Ulster, irrespective of his religion, irrespective of his political convictions, has a fair deal and a fair chance of determining his own future.
As I shall try to show in a moment entrusting the fate of Northern Ireland exclusively to the Northern Ireland Parliament will prevent all free discussion and all free elections. But first let me deal for a moment with the strength and distribution of those opposed to partition at present, because that, I think, will explain to the Committee what to my mind is the essence of the problem. If one con-

siders the vote for this Parliament in four of the six counties, in Tyrone, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Armagh—the vote for this Parliament, which is a fairer test than the vote for the Northern Ireland Parliament—one finds that in an electorate of about 280,000 people there is a total majority of 4,500 votes in favour of partition. A change of 1 per cent. in the voting, would mean that in four out of the Six Counties the people were in favour of going in with the South; and it is that which strikes the people in the South, and it is from that point of view that they look at the situation. Why is that so?
The economic advantages of partition—the argument with which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe was dealing, who, I am sorry to say seems to have left the Chamber—the economic advantages affect only the city and area of Belfast. I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman the junior Member for Down (Lieutenant Mullan) here, because I think he is a native of Newry. Let us consider his own native town. The unemployment amongst male workers was 1,740 there last July. Newry is a little town with a total population of 13,000. I calculate that there is a male population of about 4,500—male working population. That shows the degree of unemployment. People in the South of Ireland very often, whether it is right or wrong, say that this unemployment seems to have been sent and deliberately sent as a reward to those people for their religious beliefs and for their political convictions.
I will read to the Committee a letter which I have received, not from a leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland but from a general. I will not give his name because he wrote saying that, while I could read his letter, it would put him in a difficult position if I gave his name. I will only say that he was a Deputy Lieutenant for the County in which he lives and his brother was a Field-Marshal and very distinguished in the British Service. Writing to me in regard to what I had been saying about a remark that we are still hoping somebody on the opposite side of the Committee will withdraw—a remark made by Sir Basil Brooke, that Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland were 99 per cent. disloyal, he says:
I hardly think you are digging deep enough. Basil Brooke was probably not far


out in saying that the Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland were 99 per cent. disloyal, but the question is not what they are, but what reason have they to be loyal, and who to? This is no new growth in Ulster, but merely the relics of the old spirit of Protestant ascendancy in its last ditch, where it can still count on a majority.
He gives two examples of this spirit in two speeches by typical Protestants. He quotes one by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is a Cabinet Minister in Northern Ireland, and who said this:
When will the Protestant employers of Northern Ireland recognise their duty to their Protestant brothers and sisters, and employ them to the exclusion of Roman Catholics?
Then the letter goes on to quote again from an election speech made by the Minister of Health, who said that he thoroughly agreed with Sir Joseph Davison regarding the employment of Protestants by Protestants, and that he would go further and suggest that Protestant workers should patronise only Protestant shopkeepers.
A demand or boycott of that sort has its effect. As a result, when the war broke out, religious intolerance took precedence over national effort. Let me quote from the "Derry Journal" a few days after the outbreak of war, on 6th September. It states, writing of Belfast:
When Catholic workers, the majority of them skilled men, arrived at the shipyards on Monday morning, parties of men approached them at their work and asked them their religion. On stating their religion, the Catholic workers were told to leave the yard while it was safe and not to come back. Incidents at the shipyard spread to the aircraft factory in Short and Harlands. … Catholic workers, estimated at 80, were ordered to clear out and not come back. The expulsion of Catholics was also carried out in a number of mills.

Mr. Gage: I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair to both sides. While nobody likes a boycott of the nature he has described, would he not tell us that the very journal from which he is quoting, at the last election advocated the boycotting of Protestants by Catholics?

Mr. Bing: It is quite possible for these excesses to be built up, first on the one side and then on the other. That is one of the reasons why we should get back to the economic basis, and not have politics determined entirely by religion. For, example, we have the circular sent to all Members by the Northern Ireland Government, which gives an analysis of how

people might vote by analysing their religious belief. I am not blaming one side or the other. I am only saying that religious difference is allowed to enter into the strong feeling which undoubtedly exists over this question. It is the belief in the South—rightly or wrongly, I do not know—that there is a systematic victimisation of their co-religionists by the Government of Northern Ireland, and that so long as this Government are in power and can control the franchise to the Northern Ireland Parliament, there can be no justice for the Catholics of the North. That is why any provision which provides for the consent of the Northern Ireland Parliament is so objectionable to so many of my hon. Friends.
Before I leave this question I would like to say one more word about it. Hon. Members will recall the vehemence with which in this House a few weeks ago the case of the alleged injustice in a foreign country to a great prelate of the Roman Catholic Church was denounced. The Foreign Secretary said that some Members were so strongly moved that they appeared to want us to go to war on the subject. Hon. Members can see the effect that it must have when this House appears to abandon its undoubted powers over Northern Ireland and refuses to raise one finger to help, not a great prince of the Church, but humble and helpless followers of a persecuted faith who are their fellow countrymen. To leave the fate of Northern Ireland to be decided by the North of Ireland Parliament is to ignore the fact that the Northern Ireland Government openly boast that they will alter the franchise as soon as there is——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must relate these remarks to the later Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). I have already stopped the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) from taking this line.

Mr. Bing: I think that I am entitled to say that it is undesirable to leave this matter in the hands of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I am not asking that any one part of any one county should be divorced, but Parliament as a whole is unsatisfactory. I shall deal with the franchise as it affects Belfast and other places.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that would be going into too much detail now. The hon. Member had better keep his remarks on that subject for the next Amendment.

Mr. Bing: When we are discussing this subsection is it not in Order to discuss any words that occur in it? Is it not very difficult for hon. Members, whether speaking for or against the subsection, to discuss it if the last words in it may not be referred to?

The Deputy-Chairman: I gave a Ruling with regard to the hon. Member for West Belfast and I must stick to that Ruling. I have already ruled him out of Order in referring to this question. I think that hon. Members may deal with it in more detail when we come to the Amendment concerning the elections.

Mr. Bing: I am in some difficulty about this. Perhaps I may put the matter very generally and leave any details to a later stage. I say that the Northern Ireland Government are not only prepared to alter the franchise but they have in fact altered the franchise in such a way that the present elections to their own Parliament are not even representative of one side or the other. There is a great multiplication of business votes. If I may quote one instance which affects the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), in one of his own wards there are 35 business votes registered for this House; under the Northern Ireland system there are 1,072. At the same time, a great number of voters are disfranchised from voting for the Northern Ireland Parliament. I shall deal with that in further detail when the next Amendment is called.
5.15 p.m.
The right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill), speaking, yesterday, said that we may have to call back the special constables to deal with this situation. When we are dealing with elections in Northern Ireland the special constables are well to the fore. May I read an election notice, again referring to the constituency of the hon. Member for Londonderry? It states in an appeal for workers:
New Buildings—A Meeting of Workers at the 'B' Specials Hut, Newbuildings, on Tuesday, 24th June, 1947,"—
a police barracks for election workers to come together in. There is a close

and intimate connection between the police and the elections. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) in his elections will remember that the special constables were firing a volley as a tribute to his success when one of them was unfortunately struck by a bullet of a colleague, an act of carelessness which received the severe disapproval of the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland.
There is some very genuine apprehension about the connection between the police and the electoral machine, which was referred to I think by my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy). I take a recent example from the Northern Ireland HANSARD. It happened that a special constable was arrested for conducting a series of armed robberies, using the arms provided for him for his police duties. In the course of the case, it came out that when his house was searched there was found hidden there great quantities of machine-gun ammunition. Although there was considerable pressure in the Northern Ireland Parliament, there was complete refusal on the part of the Northern Ireland Government to institute any prosecution with regard to the possession of this ammunition. Yet under the Northern Ireland Special Powers Act this is an extremely serious offence for which a man may be flogged and undergo a long term of imprisonment. There is a general feeling that there is some form of concealed bias by which one side gets an advantage not given to the other. That, of course, is made much worse by the existence of the Northern Ireland Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act. I will not go into that in great detail. Hon. Members already know from previous Debates the effect of the Northern Ireland Special Powers Act. It is sufficient to say that the Minister of Home Affairs is in the position to imprison anyone for as long as he likes without trial.
The Act has been used in the past to imprison the election opponent of a Minister of Home Affairs. The case I quote does not affect the issue I am discussing because it was a case of imprisoning a man who attempted to run an unofficial Unionist candidate against the official one supported by the Minister. He was imprisoned for some time and then released. There having been a slight political change in favour of the unofficial


candidate, he returned to his job in the police force from which he had been previously removed. Never, throughout that period, was he tried or given any indication of the case against him. It is a well-known case which was debated in the Northern Ireland House, and the facts are beyond dispute.
The Government of Northern Ireland can exclude anyone from their territories, so the Irish case can never be put. Mr. de Valera was elected a Member of Parliament for Northern Ireland. When he attempted to visit his constituency, he was told that he would be put in prison—and he was—as soon as put foot in it.

Sir R. Ross: What year was that?

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman may be better informed than I am on this subject——

Sir R. Ross: That would not be very difficult.

Mr. Bing: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to give way, I shall be very pleased to do so, and perhaps his remarks may be placed on record. I am sure they would be of value.

Sir R. Ross: The hon. Gentleman was talking about Mr. de Valera not being allowed into Northern Ireland. I think that was during the time when there were intense troubles which he was fomenting.

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman is probably better informed about Northern Ireland's affairs than I am, but up to now it has not been possible to obtain from the Northern Ireland Government any details as to when they raised this ban. When the ban on entry is raised, perhaps the Northern Ireland Government will make a statement as to which ban remains in force with regard to which people. It was originally imposed as long ago as 1920 or 1922. The House will recall the case of another Member of the Northern Ireland House. Another Member of the Northern Ireland House—I am now speaking from memory; no doubt the hon. Baronet will contradict me if I am wrong—was arrested in 1936, some 14 years after the order was imposed. This unfortunate old man was sentenced to a period of imprisonment because, in the closing days of his life, he dared to return to his own home town,

which he had previously represented as a Member of Parliament.
It is in the power of the Northern Ireland Government to prohibit any form of political procession and any form of political meeting. In those circumstances, how can there be any free discussion by the people of Northern Ireland on which course they want? I am not saying that we should force them to accept or refuse partition, but I am trying to urge on the Home Secretary that we should insist that they have at any rate an opportunity of discussing the issue. There is the curious irony that someone received a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for being in possession of a book entitled "The Irish Republic" by Dorothy McArdle. That is a classic work on the Irish Republic which deals with the period 1912 to 1930. That sentence was imposed during the last war when the authoress of this work was touring the other part of Ireland urging them to enter the war on our side. That is the degree to which political repression goes.
The Northern Ireland Government defend the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act, not on the ground they put forward here, that it is necessary to defend them from the South, but on the ground that to remove it would lose them the opportunity of maintaining their majority in Parliament. That is said quite frankly and openly in the Northern Ireland Parliament. I am glad to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General here, because I wish to read what was said by his opposite number in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will be able to judge the difference in style, and I do not think the comparison will be to the disadvantage of my right hon. and learned Friend. The Attorney-General in Northern Ireland was asked when they would implement the pledge given in this House—perhaps I should say, to be fair, the suggestion flung out—by the right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) that they should make the Special Powers Act an annual Act, and at least allow the Northern Ireland Parliament to discuss their fetters once a year. He replied that it could not be done until abnormal times were past. Pressed as to when abnormal times would pass he said:
I say the abnormal times have not yet passed away, and I have not the slightest hope or expectation that they will ever pass away"—


he then went on to give what is perhaps the real point of his remark—
until there is a complete change on the part of a section of this population in their attitude towards this Government, the Government by law established.
That is their attitude, that by divine will the Northern Ireland Government has been established, and so long as anyone is in opposition to it, they are entitled to all powers to crush that opposition.

Sir R. Ross: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to mislead himself too far. What was said on that occasion was that as long as the Opposition to the Government of Northern Ireland was one that said that Government has no right to exist, then that was an abnormal attitude for an Opposition to adopt, and that as long as that continued, it made very great difficulties, but that if it were to become a normal Opposition which allowed the Government the right to exist and merely criticised the way in which the Government carried out its functions, then things would be different.

Mr. Bing: Exactly. I am very glad to have that interjection from the hon. Baronet. He and I are, for once, in complete agreement, and he has made my point far better than I could have done. What he is saying is that so long as any party advocates the end of partition, that Party ought not to be allowed any democratic rights, because if they had their way they would produce a state of affairs which would bring about the ending of Northern Ireland Government. That is a perfectly understandable and logical point of view, which the hon. Baronet has put with greater clarity than the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland. It is for that reason that I say I think it undesirable that the Northern Ireland Parliament should be the body which should decide this matter.
The whole thing still remains as it was some 35 years ago. At that time the right hon. Member for Woodford made an extremely valuable speech, of which, for greater accuracy, I have obtained a photostat copy. He then put forward what "The Times" headlined as

"MR. CHURCHILL'S MESSAGE TO ULSTER A FINAL OFFER"

His final offer was—and this shows how far we have travelled since that day—that any individual Ulster county could

hold out for six years. He said:
I can measure the cruel pang with which this temporary, but none the less serious change has been accepted … by the great mass of the Irish nation. It is their hope, and I think they are right and wise in hoping, that the day will come, perhaps before that period is passed when, of their own free will, the Ulster counties that have exercised the option will wish to be incorporated in the ancient Parliament of their motherland, when that brilliant and courageous speaker, Mr. Devlin, will lead the democracy of Belfast to take their true position in the councils of a united and progressive Ireland.
We on this side of the Committee are entitled to ask: Whose fault is it that that situation was not achieved? The fault lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Eden: Would the hon. Gentleman say for precisely what?

Mr. Bing: If the right hon. Gentleman will pause for one moment I will answer him with the words of his right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford, who went on to describe the intransigent spirit of the Conservative Party, and particularly the Conservative Party of Northern Ireland which, he said, was the cause. Speaking of Mr. Asquith, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The Prime Minister asked in one of his great speeches, 'If Home Rule were to fail now, how could you govern the rest of Ireland?' Captain Craig"—
who became Lord Craigavon, the architect of the present system in Northern Ireland—
Captain Craig, an Ulster Member, a man quite representative of those for whom he speaks, interjected blithely, 'We have done it before.' …
There you get the true insight into the Tory mind. Coercion for four-fifths of Ireland is a healthful exhilarating, salutory exercise, but lay a finger upon the Tory fifth—sacrilege, tyranny, murder! 'We have done it before and we will do it again.'

Mr. Mikardo: Where is he?

Mr. Bing: There is the ascendancy spirit. There is the spirit with which we are confronted. There is the obstacle to the peace and unity of Ireland. There stands the barrier which, when all just claims have been met and all the fears, reasonable and unreasonable, have been prevented, still blocks the path of Irish freedom and British progress.
Well, there is still something in Northern Ireland and in this intransigent attitude


of the Northern Ireland Government which fits aptly with that quotation. I think that this quotation is sometimes used somewhat unfairly against the right hon. Gentleman, and against the Tory Party of today. It may not altogether fit the Tory Party here, but it certainly fits the Tory Party in Northern Ireland.
Let me continue with what he said, bearing in mind the Northern Ireland Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act, and the open assertion by the hon. Baronet that, of course the Unionist Party would suppress an Opposition because they did not agree with the Northern Ireland Parliament and were in favour of abolishing it altogether.

Sir R. Ross: I never said anything of the sort.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Bing: He continues:
As long as it affects working men in England or Nationalist peasants in Ireland, there is no measure of military force which the Tory Party will not readily employ. … If they cannot do it by the veto of privilege, they will do it by the veto of violence. If constitutional methods serve their ends, they will be Constitutionalists. If law suits their purpose, they will be law-abiding, aye, and law-enforcing. When social order means the order of the Tory Party, when social order means the order of the propertied classes against the wage-earner, when social order means the master against the man, or the landlord against the tenant, order is sacred and holy, order is dear to the heart of the Tory Party and order must be maintained by force. But if it should happen that the Constitution or the law, or the maintenance of order stands in the path of some Tory project, stands in the path of the realisation of some appetite or ambition which they have conceived, then they vie with the wildest anarchists in the language which they use against the Constitution, against the law, and against all order and all means of maintaining order, and that is the political doctrine with which they salute the 20th century.

Mr. McGovern: Who is this man?

Mr. Gallacher: I am very interested in what the hon. Member has been saying about the Tories. Does this not apply exactly to the case of Eisler?

Mr. Bing: I was very interested in many ways in this question, from perhaps almost exactly the standpoint of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I feel that I have taken up quite enough time of the Committee without embarking on what I conceive to be something that would be quite out of Order. Let

me give the right hon. Gentleman's final words:
That is the political doctrine with which they salute the twentieth century.
We have a positive duty in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is not a Dominion but a subordinate Parliament. Section 3 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, an article which has been repealed, has been quoted. I propose to read a Section which has not been repealed, Section 75, which deals with the powers of this Parliament. I will read it as amended by subsequent legislation.
Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Northern Ireland and every part thereof.
In the face of that, we on this side simply cannot get rid of our responsibility for Northern Ireland, much as we should like to do so, or at least much as some of us would.
It may well be, and I accept the argument, that Northern Ireland has great strategical value. I have always held the view that it was wrong for the Irish Republic not to come into the war, and I should have defended, I think, the seizing of bases in order to defend ourselves. But if we occupy an area for strategical reasons, then surely we have a duty to the inhabitants, not to the majority only, but all the inhabitants, majority and minority.
A second point—we are paying for the Northern Ireland social services. I was glad to see, when the superior social services in Northern Ireland were being pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) nodded his approval. Naturally so—they occupy the best part of his election address. What was not said, and what it is important should be said, is that these social services are paid for, not by the people of Northern Ireland but by the people of this country. That is quite proper. It is part of the United Kingdom, but we at least have a right to say how that money shall be spent.
In the event of any sort of trouble in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Antrim said, the Northern Ireland Government would rely on British troops. That is quite proper, but the House ought to remember that these


British troops will contain British conscripts and not any Northern Ireland conscripts, because there is no conscription in Northern Ireland. If the conscripts of this country are going out to defend another country which is subordinate to this Parliament, we have a duty to the people of this country to see that there is not a Government in that country of Northern Ireland which needlessly provokes an incident.
I have detained the Committee far longer than I had intended, and I will conclude by quoting a Northern Ireland Member who was a Unionist throughout his life and died a few days ago. He was a high officer in the Northern Ireland police force and a high officer in the R.I.C. before that date. This man has no sympathies at all with the Nationalists and indeed had the bitterest feelings against them. He made a speech in the Northern Irish House in which he reviewed all the corruption, the gerrymandering and the frauds, which accompany the elections in Northern Ireland, He said, in simple Northern Irish idiom, to his own Government:
All I want you to do is to ask the Imperial Government to stop it. What is the good of their supervising the vote in Austria and Greece and sticking their noses into other people's business on the Continent, and the like of that goes on here?

Mr. Gage: Inevitably this series of Amendments must raise the question of partition; indeed, it would be difficult to find an Amendment to an Irish Bill on which someone somehow or other would not contrive to bring that in. I agree with one part of what the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said, and that was that possibly in the future one could look forward to a tying together of both parts of Ireland. I do not think, however, that the best way to do that is to devote a considerable part of a very long speech to an attack on the Government and the Parliament of one of those parties. The ordinary humble working classes in Ulster quite rightly look upon an attack of that sort as an attack upon themselves, and they find it difficult to understand that a Member who indulges in an attack of that sort, is really sincere when he says that he looks forward to the two parts of the country coming together at some future time.
I think there are a few simple facts about Ireland, North and South, which Members, when discussing a matter of this sort, should try to understand. I have observed and regretted that in all Debates of this nature the Government of Northern Ireland, and consequently the people of Northern Ireland, come under attacks of this sort. In the case of Mr. Costello and Mr. de Valera, one can understand that when they get cross with the Northern Ireland Government they habitually refer to them as a Tory junta and a stronghold of Conservatism, but I heard the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), to whom I always listen with respect, repeat those very words the other day. He told us, in his charming way, how he had an Irish mother.

Mr. McGovern: An Irish father.

Mr. Gage: The real trouble with English politicians is, of course, their Irish fathers, or more usually their Irish grandmothers. So many of them have Irish grandmothers who seem to have handed down to them the most extraordinary and erroneous doctrines.

Mr. Bing: My grandfather gave his name to one of the more celebrated flute bands of the Orange Order.

Mr. Gage: I do not doubt that for a moment.
When considering both parts of Ireland I believe that the reverse is the case. The South of Ireland is the real stronghold of Toryism, which is of a type that is almost completely out of date in this country. To a certain extent it is still a feudal State, and for over 26 years has had some of the most reactionary Governments in Europe. We find there a low standard of living, a literary censorship and a constant stream of emigration. The hon. Member for Rochester—I beg his pardon, I mean the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan); a hyacinth by any other name smells just as sweet—went to the South of Ireland thinking that it might be a good plan, after he had taken up their cause, to see for himself. I think he will bear me out when I say that he found the Labour movement practically extinct, and no form of trade unionism there at all. These are matters which Members opposite should bear in mind when they vote.
On the other hand, the industrial North of Ireland has always been somewhat to the Left in politics. I recall my own grandfather, who always voted Unionist and sat as a Unionist in this House, and who was a complete Radical, like so many Ulstermen of his day. They voted as they did simply on the Irish question. It is ridiculous to call the Government in Ulster reactionary, when it has among its members such people as their Minister of Health, who has done as much for trade unionism as any Member in this House and far more than all the members of the Southern Irish Government put together. The other day the hon. Member for Shettleston mentioned Mr. Midgley, whom I know rather well because he opposed me at the last General Election. He is a member of the Labour movement of the very best type, who had at heart the welfare of the ordinary, simple, working people in Belfast and who was greatly loved by them. Throughout the whole of his career Mr. Midgley never once attempted to court the Nationalist vote.

Mr. Beattie: He was the standard bearer of the Irish Republic from 1920 until he left the Labour Party, and stood in the Sinn Fein movement, for the unity of Ireland in 1921.

Mr. Gage: The hon. Member can say what he wishes in that respect, but it is well known to Unionists and Socialists in Ulster that Mr. Midgley—and I say this because he cannot be here to speak for himself—has never courted the Nationalist vote.

Mr. McGovern: Surely the hon. Member is not disputing that Mr. Midgley stood as a Unionist candidate at the Ulster Election and was returned as such, and thereby threw over all his Labour views.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gage: That is so, but at that time the Labour Party were unable to make up their minds where they stood on this question and, therefore, Mr. Midgley thought it only right to come to the parting of the ways.
It is not only the wealthy and privileged classes in Ulster who welcome paragraph (b). They would probably be better off in the South, but those who passionately desire it, are the ordinary, simple, working

folk who find it difficult to understand how hon. Members, who, they have been told, are the champions of the working man, can vote to thrust them into a State which they look upon as being something of a survival of the Middle Ages. We are often accused in Ireland of being paradoxical in our politics, and of producing paradoxical situations. The truth is that it is the English who are illogical; the Irish are simple compared to the tortuous, subtle English. We find it a little remarkable that the cause of the Southerner should be espoused by the hon Member for Hornchurch (Mr Bing), who I am sorry to see is not still in his place. We remember that he took some interest in the Spanish Civil War, on the Government side, while the South supported Franco to a man, and still does. We find the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) voting against the Bill. It is a little curious. Both hon. Members should persuade the Russians to allow Eire to become a member of the United Nations.

Mr. Gallacher: At the first political meeting I ever attended, as a boy, John Redmond gave an address on Home Rule. I have never lost my interest in the Home Rule question.

Mr. Gage: If the hon. Gentleman had gone to another political demonstration on Easter Monday, when the Republic was proclaimed, he might have remained for another day and taken part in a second demonstration, which was a protest against the trial of Cardinal Mindzenty. It is a little odd to us Irishmen to find the cause of Southern Ireland espoused by such as the hon. Member.
The Lord President of the Council, who is not lacking in political acumen, has fairly well seen the position between North and South. I fancy I detected a glint of triumph in the Debate on Second Reading when he read us the resolution of the Northern Ireland Labour Party. It is true he left out the most important matter—the date. If he had given us the date, it would have been seen that the resolution was passed after the party had been annihilated in the Northern Ireland General Election a short time ago. It is little wonder that after that defeat they realised that it was essential for any party which desired to succeed in Northern


Ireland and to obtain the votes of the working classes, to say where they stood on this issue. In fact, they know it is hopeless unless they stand as practically every Ulsterman stands on the question of partition, and as is laid down in paragraph (b). It is quite simple. We are a people who, rightly or wrongly, have thrown in our lot with this country. That is a fact which is affirmed in this Clause, and it is one which we heartily support. This Clause meets with the good wishes of every person in Ulster, no matter of what political complexion, and one which is widely supported by Ulstermen everywhere.

Mr. Mulvey: The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) says that this Clause has the support of everyone in Ulster. Is he aware that more than one-third of the people do not agree with this Clause at all, and desire to bring an end to partition in Ireland?

Dr. Morgan: I should like to thank the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) for his remarks about me and my visit to Ireland last summer. I went to Ireland as a peace-maker. I had no intention of creating any row, but simply of making personal inquiries from people whom I met and to speak purely about Labour Party policy. I never touched on the question which is before us this afternoon. I never said anything against the Unionist Party or the party in power in Southern Ireland. I dealt entirely with party politics.
I am a little perturbed about this Bill and frankly I intend to vote against this Clause. I am very sorry that that should be so, for I very seldom vote against the Labour Party. I was brought up traditionally to support them, but several times quite recently I have had qualms of conscience. Let me try to be logical on this Bill. It refers in several places to "Northern Ireland." I heard the Attorney-General today, as I heard the Lord President of the Council the other night, speak of "Northern Ireland." The phrase is actually incorporated in the Bill, but the part of Ireland to which reference is made is not Northern Ireland; it is the Six Counties of Ulster.
The Lord President used an argument which to me seemed to be illogical. He said that Northern Ireland, the Six Coun-

ties of Ulster, was a State, and that we did not intend that at any time—the Attorney-General modified that and said not during the lifetime of this Parliament—or in any event, it should be otherwise than part of His Majesty's dominions. In other words, there is to be non-co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. Let me for a moment examine the logic of that situation. The Six Counties of Ulster are to be definitely excluded from incorporation with Southern Ireland at any time.

Mr. Bramall: No.

Dr. Morgan: My hon. Friend says, "No." I know how very difficult the Irish question is. I was brought up on it. I have been secretary to six Irish Members of Parliament, and that was during the time of the great Home Rule Debates. Those Members included the Redmonds, Devlin, Kettle, Hazelton, and so on. After qualifying in medicine I spent practically all my time looking on at the Irish Party and I saw what they were and what they represented. The hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) may use as many negatives as he likes but he cannot touch my argument.
I want to come to the logic of the explanation of the Lord President of the Council. The Six Counties are to be definitely excluded from the rest of Ireland, and it would be an outrage, according to the argument which was used, if they were to be included in Southern Ireland. But of those Six Counties two are definitely Nationalist and want to be incorporated in Southern Ireland. They have showed by every possible vote on every possible occasion that they do not want to remain with the Six Counties but want to be included in Southern Ireland. What is the logic of that situation? We are not prepared to coerce the Six Counties of Ulster and force them into incorporation with Southern Ireland, but we are prepared to coerce two of the Six Counties to keep them definitely under the Northern Ireland Government.
Is that the logic of the situation? Does the Home Secretary tell me that that is democracy? Are the Lord President of the Council and the Attorney-General going to tell me that this is according to real democratic principles? Is that the object which they want to attain with regard to certain parts of Ireland? Is that


what the Labour Party stands for today, the party which originally helped the Irish party in their efforts to secure a real, decent united Ireland? I know the situation is intensely difficult. Time and time again, I have told the Irish Members in private conversation that I should like to see Ireland enjoying fully the strategic position she holds, and politically, economically, socially and in every other way coming in with Great Britain.
Ireland is a poor country. It has poor land, poor peasantry and bad social conditions with a Conservative Government in power in Southern Ireland, while the Government in Northern Ireland, though Conservative and reactionary, are introducing social services something like ours, which the people in Southern Ireland cannot get. The position is absolutely absurd from the point of view of any real decent social reformer who can rise above the emotional feeling of nationalism. The Irish can be just as nationalistic and come in with Great Britain.
I want to come back to the point of democracy. Does the Home Secretary really feel prepared to exclude indefinitely these two counties from Southern Ireland and force them to remain under the Northern Ireland Government? Here is the logic of the situation. Are the Government going to divide North from South Wales, because that is the same thing? It is the same with regard to Devon and Cornwall—the old kingdom of Cornwall. Are the Government prepared to separate the Lowlands and the Highlands of Scotland? As a politician with some amount of intelligence, I feel there is something wrong with the scope of the logic of this Bill. For the life of me I cannot see how this paragraph (b) can be allowed to remain.
I know what the answer is going to be; indeed, I can see it coming. The Government are going to tell me, "You must be a realist." I must be a realist, but I must sacrifice the principles I hold as well as everything I hold dear—everything for which I have worked all my life. I cannot come to that conclusion. Let us remember the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee) about a Cabinet mission going to Ireland. It could meet our friends in Ireland and come to some sort of agree-

ment with them whereby this problem at any rate could be brought nearer solution if in the first stages it cannot be solved. I ought to stop now, because I do not want to speak too long. I am convinced of this—[Interruption.] I am not going to speak about South Africa. That is one of the stupid observations which some back benchers on this side of the House who are supporting the Bill like to introduce. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is on your side."] He is not on my side.
6.0 p.m.
The point I want to make, which had almost been put out of my mind by the interruption, is very important. Any medical man knows, if he has studied the population statistics, that because of the rate of increase in the Roman Catholic population in the Six Counties there will be in 10 or 20 years, a natural, overwhelming vote in favour of amalgamation with the rest of Ireland. I see that the Attorney-General is laughing. He has a great legal mind, but I do not think that he studies population statistics. Let him not poach on my preserves or he will slip up. In his own line, he is an absolute authority, but I can tell him that if he were to study statistics of the populations of Europe and of other parts of the world he would realise that the time is rapidly coming, because of the development taking place in the populations of Southern and Northern Ireland, when the vote will be so overwhelming in favour of unity that there will be no need to have any division between Northern and Southern Ireland. I am glad of the opportunity of being able to make these few remarks, and I thank you, Mr. Bowles, for the opportunity of speaking.

Mr. Harden: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) should accuse Northern Ireland of having its social services subsidised by this country. It has been made clear in this House on several occasions that since the Government of Northern Ireland has been in existence, the sum contributed to the Imperial Exchequer has been some £196 million, after paying for our own local services.

Mr. Bing: But before paying for any of the Imperial services such as the cost of the Armed Forces, the foreign service, or anything like that.

Mr. Harden: I do not think that that point comes into the discussion, so I shall have to leave it and come to the question of whether Ulster should allow Tyrone and Fermanagh to go back to the State of Eire. The boundaries were agreed to in 1925 and I suggest that we cannot go back and start altering them. The subsection which gives a guarantee to Northern Ireland is essential to the Bill. Let us look at what has happened only in the last year. First we had the statement of the Prime Minister giving a guarantee to Ulster. Then, during the same time, were the meetings of the Imperial premiers in London to which representatives of Eire were called. We did not have representation from the Ulster Government there. People in Ulster began to wonder what was going on behind the scenes. Then the Bill arrived, and we see that it is generous to the people of Eire. That is a generosity which I quite appreciate. The people of Northern Ireland have many business associations with the people of Eire, and it is essential that we should continue with them. We have many friends and relatives across the border. I have an uncle who lives in Mullingar.
As to the suggestion that the Prime Minister has altered his original pledge, I think it is only right and proper that the Bill should show that there has been no change in what he originally said. It is said also that the Bill causes permanent partition. I do not believe that it alters the position at all. If the view of hon. Members opposite is that they would like to see partition end, I suggest that it would be better if they were to instruct the politicians in Dublin to alter their tune. I was sorry for the stupid and ill-conceived outbursts that have come from Dublin, and which can only widen the gap between the South and the North. As all hon. Members who have been to Ulster will know, all the good that those outbursts can do is to unite the Unionists into a solid mass in their determination to remain under the Crown and part of this United Kingdom.
I need say little more. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) brought the religious question into the discussion. In my own constituency I think there are 24,000 people whose faith is different from my own. Many of them voted for me. It is my

job to represent them all, whatever their creed, and I try to keep religious influences out of what I do inside my constituency. I am sorry that the hon. Member brought it in.

Mr. Bing: Would the hon. Member express equal regret for the words that have fallen from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and from his Minister of Health?

Mr. Harden: I cannot be responsible for statements made by other people.

Mr. Logan: I have listened with great pleasure to the discussion about partition. It took me back about 40 years and to my association with the old Irish party. I say in all humbleness that I know as much about the Irish movement as any other Member of this House. I have met dozens of the old Irish Members and I have listened to discussions conducted in more lively fashion in regard to Ulster than anything we have heard here today. I belong to the Labour Party. I believe that has a chastening influence in regard too——

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Logan: I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a reason for his "Hear, hear." It will enlighten the minds of the Tory Party and bring to bear some common sense, even within our own ranks. We are dealing with a problem of great importance. The Irish question is very important indeed to me. Hitler and Mussolini have gone and dynasties are going out. The only thing of this kind that has to be retained is Ulster. I am not able to realise the importance in 1949 that Ulster has in the family of nations. If anything has helped to separate Irishmen and to create discord all over the world it has been the question of Ulster and the preferential treatment handed out to it, as well as the subjection of other portions of Ireland, South, East and West. That situation has caused the utmost trouble all over the world, wherever Irish people have dwelt. I thought that that period of Irish history had finished and that more common sense could be brought to bear in 1949.
History is showing that a dispersion which took place 1,949 years ago is coming to an end and that a nation,


Jewry, is coming forward today and is claiming its own. Among the races that have been dispersed all over Europe, the Irish race has never had a home, because plantation has taken place. Those who should have had the right to inhabit their own home have not been able to do so, and they have found nothing but poverty and destitution in a land that should have been most fruitful to all of them. It should have been most powerful. If it had not been for the system which has been tolerated for years, we should never have had the regrettable incident of the treaty ports being refused in our hour of danger. When we asked Mr. de Valera to open those ports to us in the hour of England's danger we thought that he might have followed the old adage, "Ireland's opportunity is the hour of England's danger," but with that resentment which goes down into the heart of every Irishman he would not act and we were denied the use of Irish ports when our men were in great danger.
However, even with all these abject difficulties we must not forget the heroism of close on 200,000 Irish from Southern Ireland who fought with our men in the air, on the sea, and on land in all parts of the world. They gave valorous help in our hour of difficulty. It is because of that, that I rise today after 18 years' silence in this House to say what I feel it is absolutely essential to say in disagreement with my own Government. Why have the Government brought forward a subsection such as this instead of doing something to unify Ireland and to bring benefit to this nation? God knows we want all the friends we can get. I see nothing here for the benefit of Ireland.
I call "Eire" "Ireland." I recognise no subdivisions in what is one land. I classify Ireland as one Ireland, one Ireland to be governed, one people to be governed and one form of government, and responsibility to be placed on this Government for the management of the affairs of Northern Ireland. The House of Commons has given authority for certain powers in Northern Ireland but not for a moment should we let the people of Northern Ireland think they have absolute powers for they are subsidiary to this Government and to whatever powers this Government wishes to pass.
I was surprised when I heard hon. Members wasting about two hours over

words with similar meanings. It was a waste of talent which ought to have been put to better use. I am still anxious to know if there is any hon. Member who really thinks that with this compromise we shall solve the Irish problem, which in our heart of hearts we all want to solve. We shall be confronted with it some other time. Surely the Labour Party today ought to be able to realise that a minority in Northern Ireland does not control the destiny of the Irish nation and the Irish people. This problem meets us in our workshops, factories, docks and ships and wherever in the world Irishmen dwell, and it calls for some consideration in a British House of Commons.
I am not speaking to Northern Ireland but to the Mother of Parliaments. I am speaking to a Parliament to which I give fealty and to which is given the loyalty of my family who went to the wars and returned. However, when I see the anomaly of trying to call Irishmen "Englishmen" and of trying to arrange by Act of Parliament for a new nationality, when we know that a court of law, if it has to decide it, will decide that there is no such nationality, I do not know what we are playing about. All I know is that the greatest statesman of my time dealing with the Irish problem was Jimmy O'Dea the Irish comedian. He walked on the stage where there was a barrier representing partition, and he put one foot in Ulster and the other in Southern Ireland. He stood there and at last he said, "Let us get rid of this damn thing" and threw the barrier away.
6.15 p.m.
Is there anybody in Northern Ireland sufficiently a realist to appreciate that it is worth coming to a common agreement between the people of Ireland rather than to waste the time of the Imperial Parliament in dealing with the Irish question? I have heard that threshed out before. In 1874 my father was talking about it. My father happened to be a Scotsman and my mother was an Irishwoman. From my infancy it has been a curse listening to debate about the Irish question, and I want to get rid of it. Why do not the Northern Irishmen settle down and begin to realise that instead of being a minority, wanting to dominate the others, they should take their proper place with the nationals of Ireland in the government of the land.


Then we should have, as Grattan wanted, a Parliament in Dublin, or Grattan's Parliament might be moved to Stormont. What I want to see is one nation and one body of Irishmen in a comity with England which will be beneficial to our future welfare.
Clause 1 (1, b) ought to be deleted. The Attorney-General made an erroneous statement. He used a phrase which he said meant for ever and ever. That does not apply because this is a transitory matter——

The Attorney-General: I used no such expression; nothing of the kind. I said that in law one Parliament cannot bind a subsequent Parliament.

Mr. Logan: I hope that I have not misinterpreted the Attorney-General. When he was asked about the definition he said "for ever and ever." Later he explained that it meant that no Parliament could bind another. That is why I called the attention of the Committee to the fact that a matter of such a transitory nature does not appear to have any reality in relation to "for ever and ever." What is the use of the British House of Commons——

Mr. Proctor: Hear, hear.

Mr. Logan: There seem to be other comedians as well as Jimmy O'Dea. Jimmy O'Dea is not in it. I am not a nonconformist and I am not in conformity with every point of view which may be expressed on these benches. What is more, I am not afraid of giving my opinion about some of the views expressed on these benches. I should like to say more about some of them, but I am dealing with Clause 1. I will read the Clause. I only read it now for the intelligent hon. Members in this Committee. It declares:
Northern Ireland remains part of His Majesty's Dominions and the United Kingdom"—
and affirms that
in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
The Scotland Division of Liverpool, which I have the honour to represent, is not an unenlightened part of the country because at the last election it was the only

constituency to return its Member unopposed. Therefore, the people there have established the fact that they have common sense. As far as I understand the voice of Lancashire and the aspirations of our people, they are diametrically opposed to this. Last night there was a big meeting on the main road near where I was having a cup of tea. I thought I was going back 40 years, but I was not in a dream, for when I looked out of the window they were carrying on the argument in a big open space. And hon. Members for Northern Ireland come here and think this Bill will solve the difficulty.
We are living in a fool's paradise if we think anything of the kind. During the last 20 years here, I have been on the best of terms with all who have come from Ireland and I have never said an offensive word to them. I appeal to hon. Members to remember that they belong to one family. The attitude adopted in 1949 must be more in conformity with the times than to talk in this House of the difficulties of Ireland of the past 700 years. I do not want to go back to the Elizabethan period. I want to bring about a better state of affairs and because of that, if there is a Division, I shall vote against the Government because I believe that the deletion of this paragraph would be the finest thing that could happen. Anybody who believes that the problem of Ireland will be solved by our discussion here today is only putting off the fatal day. Let us meet the occasion like men and solve the problem once and for all. Let us rise to the occasion and go into the Division Lobby in support of this Amendment.

Mr. Raikes: I always respect the sincerity which the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) shows whenever he addresses us, but his voice is not entirely the voice of Lancashire upon this issue and, as another Liverpool Member, I take an entirely different point of view.

Mr. Logan: I have been there for 78 years. Do not forget it.

Mr. Raikes: I know that the hon. Member has been there for 78 years, and I know he was unopposed at the last election. However, I know also that the Scotland Division is either becoming wiser or less wise because he is to be


opposed at the next election. Be that as it may, I am glad for once in a way to be able wholeheartedly to support the Government in regard to this paragraph. I do not believe that anything which will be done will solve the Irish problem straight away, but we shall never get a solution to it if Ulster remains in danger of being forced against her will into a united Ireland. Eire made a grave error, and made the solution of this problem far more difficult by taking the line of complete neutrality during the last war at a time when this country and Ulster were fighting for their lives. Although I recognise gratefully the fact that many from Southern Ireland gave their lives in the war, I do not believe that in this country or in this Empire there are many people who would be prepared to allow a friend who stood by us in our darkest days, to be in any danger of being coerced by those who did not stand so straightly.
I do not say that partition may not end in due course, but it will only end by a fair agreement between Northern and Southern Ireland and not by compulsion upon either side. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) pointed out that the increased population amongst the Roman Catholic community would mean that in due course the majority of Ulster would be Roman Catholic.

Dr. Morgan: In 10 years.

Mr. Raikes: If the hon. Member is correct in saying, first, that the majority of Ulster will be Roman Catholic in 10 years and, secondly, that the majority of Ulster Roman Catholics will desire to end partition, I do not know what he is worrying about. If he is right, the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of Eire within 10 years will come to a complete agreement which in no way could be affected by paragraph (b).

Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member probably did not listen to my speech. What I really posed was the illogicality of the Bill and its wording. I referred to the fact that a real economic, social and political union between Northern and Southern Ireland would be to the good of both countries, especially of Great Britain.

Mr. Raikes: The hon. Member referred to many things, and I did listen

to his speech. Nevertheless, I am justified in taking his last point and in making it clear that, if he is correct in what he said, the prospect which is worrying him will not give any trouble at all.

Mr. Paget: Is not the hon. Member on a false premise? Is not the premise that the Government of Northern Ireland will continue to represent the people because the Government of Northern Ireland have control over their own franchise? To take an extreme case, they could abolish elections.

Mr. Raikes: My reply to that is that under the franchise system in Northern Ireland, if Northern Ireland became predominately Roman Catholic, it would obviously be quite impossible for that Government to prevent the end of partition.

Mr. Paget: The Government would continue to represent the people.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not tempt me into further arguments upon something which is pretty obvious, because there are other hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak. I rose merely to emphasise that I believe the Government would be right to take the attitude which they propose to take under paragraph (b) of emphasising the position of Northern Ireland within the British Empire so long as the Government of Northern Ireland desires to remain within it; and that, in view of her record of friendship to this country, under no circumstances or conditions should Northern Ireland be compelled to go on a journey which she is not prepared to take on her own view, and by her own decision.

Mr. Asterley Jones: At this stage in the Debate it is inevitable that many of the arguments I was hoping to put before the Committee have already been put; and most of them have been put very much more effectively than I can hope to put them myself. Therefore, I will not weary the Committee by going over the ground which has already been covered.
I suggest that the Committee should pause before committing itself to voting for paragraph (b) in full. I regret that I cannot support the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie), who seeks


to remove the whole of that paragraph; but we should be wise to limit paragraph (b) simply to a declaration of what the present situation is, and not go a step further and attempt to lay down for the future what successive Parliaments may do. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made clear on a number of occasions, this Parliament cannot in law bind another Parliament. As the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) observed during the Second Reading, it would be perfectly possible for this Parliament next week, if it so wished, to repeal the Bill. We are not divided on that.
Quite apart from the legal aspect, however, let us not deceive ourselves by thinking that what we are going to do in the Bill will have no effect at all. We are, in fact, imposing a moral obligation. We are trying to write into the Constitution of this country a moral obligation that this particular Clause shall never be repealed. While it is outside the power of this Parliament to do that and so to bind our successors, I do not feel that it would be right for us today, sitting here in 1949, to attempt to lay down what our successors shall do in the future when all of us, with perhaps one or two exceptions, will have lost our seats. I should like, therefore, to lay before the Committee one or two arguments in favour of leaving, both legally and morally, in the hands of our successors the freedom to legislate on these matters in accordance with events as they appear at the time and not as we in our wisdom at this present time think they will be covered.
I concede straight away that the secession of Eire from the Commonwealth makes a statute of this kind absolutely essential. We must define the new status which the Republic of Ireland has achieved; we must define the present status of what is known as Northern Ireland. Further—here I differ from some of my hon. Friends who have spoken—I would not myself say that it is a solution of this problem that a unitary State should be imposed upon the whole of Ireland. The mere fact that a country is in a form of an island surrounded by sea does not necessarily make it follow that it should be a political as well as a geographical unity. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast quoted, and apparently in his support, the Atlantic

Charter. That is a very dangerous document to quote in favour of the proposition he was putting forward, because if Ireland were established as a unitary State the Unionists of Northern Ireland could equally freely quote the Atlantic Charter in their favour. The fact remains that wherever a boundary is drawn in circumstances of this kind considerable numbers of people are bound to be left on the wrong side of it.
What we have to consider this evening is whether, whatever may be the situation now, be it just or unjust, we are prepared to lay down that that shall be the position, as has been said so eloquently, for ever and ever in so far as we are able to provide for it. We have to ask ourselves whether we are right morally in surrendering the sovereign powers of this Imperial Parliament into the hands of a subordinate body sitting in Belfast. That is, in fact, what we are being invited to do. We are creating a new form of veto and we are saying that we surrender completely the right to legislate on this matter, a matter which is within the scope of this Parliament at this present time; a matter which affects His Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom.
I do not believe that it would be right so to surrender the sovereign powers of this Parliament, and I shall lay before the Committee several reasons for saying that it is not right to do so. First, an absolute guarantee—which is what we are giving in paragraph (b)—inevitably encourages intransigence. That has been shown time and time again. I should like, if I may, without any offence, to quote an illustration from history, the words of Viscount Grey on the subject of the virtual guarantee which Germany gave to Austria in the years immediately preceding the 1914–18 war. He said:
Yet in the crisis of 1914, especially after Serbia's disarming reply to the Austrian ultimatum, there was no ruler in Germany great enough to feel that what was essential to the peace of Europe was not the support of Austria in 'shining armour' but a wise and strong restraining hand.
It is that wise and strong restraining hand which, for all we know, may be required 20, 30 or 40 years hence. None of us can say. It is that wise and strong restraining hand of which we are depriving our successors in the future. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in one of his pre-war speeches stressed how


unwise it was to give a guarantee unless one also had a voice in the formulation of the policy which might call that guarantee into effect. We are, in fact, surrendering this power into the hands of the Northern Ireland Parliament without that voice in the policy which may bring the guarantee into effect.
I am perfectly prepared to concede for the purposes of this argument that the Northern Ireland Parliament as at present constituted will act fairly. But just as we cannot foresee the conditions under which our successors will be called upon to legislate, neither can they be foreseen by the present Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) observed, there might be a very considerable growth in the Nationalist population of Northern Ireland. It might go to such an extent that perhaps 49 per cent. of the Northern Ireland Parliament were Nationalists in sentiment and the bare majority were Unionist. Could it be said on any grounds of morality, of that large minority, something more than a fringe of transfer, that it would be moral to keep those large minorities out of Northern Ireland simply because in Parliament, there was this bare majority?
There is no guarantee that we can lay down that the legislature of Northern Ireland will not become very narrow in its composition based, not on broad democratic principles, but on a very narrow franchise. That is legally possible, yet we are saying that in no event, whatever might have happened, shall any change take place without the consent of this legislature. In this House most of us have no particular prejudices or preferences either way. I personally have not. So far as electoral matters are concerned, I doubt whether the slightest excitement is aroused in the breasts of the people of Hertfordshire.
I have never been to Ireland and I am not expert in the long and rather complicated history of Irish politics, but what we desire in this House more than anything else is a settlement which will endure. What I ask myself is, does this paragraph (b), as it stands, help, or hinder, such a settlement? I have not yet heard a single argument which leads me to suppose that it will help a settlement. If it will not help a settlement,

I suggest we leave out this future guarantee. From the speeches made, intemperate though they are and however much we object to them in content and in their words, it appears that this guarantee for the future may very well be an obstacle to a settlement rather than a help. Is not this guarantee an irritant without any corresponding advantage of any kind, whether of a moral or constitutional nature?
Another point to which I hope my right hon. Friend will reply, is what would be the result if this Committee decided to delete this future guarantee? What would be the practical result? What would be the legal result? If I could be convinced on those points, I should not wish to press this particular point of view but, so far, I have heard no answers to these arguments. I invite the Committee to give support to the Amendment in my name and in the name of many hon. Friends—in line 11, to leave out from "Kingdom," to the end of line 2, page 2—and to induce the Government, if we can, to think again on this important matter.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: We seem to have had three main lines of argument. We have had that advanced by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) which is more or less based on an attitude of "let us be cautious and let us not do anything that may upset our position in the future." We have had the extremely irritating approach, prejudiced and lacking in factual statement, of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) who, as far as I could see, was deliberately trying to prove two things. The first was that history could be re-written according to his own statements and, I have no doubt, sometime we shall be able to hear his Chartist theories about the introduction of machinery into the National Coal Board, which had about as much relevance to his arguments tonight as what my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said many years ago in a situation which was completely different. The hon. Member went on to make statements about when Mr. de Valera was unable to cross the frontier and, when challenged to give the date, he refused to do so. His speech, I think, can be dismissed for exactly what it was worth, a deliberate attempt to stir up trouble on an


occasion when trouble is the last thing which is required.
6.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) made the speech of a kind which is constantly being made in Irish circles. It was plausible, accurate as far as it went, but missed the whole of the main argument. I had to go to Dublin last week and debate with the Minister for External Affairs there on the night when Mr. Costello and Mr. de Valera made their speeches, and they made the same arguments. They talked of Ulster as though it were something to which they never agreed and an act of force majeure—as though these Six Counties were something which could be chopped and changed and something not guaranteed by anyone for any purpose whatever.
It is worthy of note that in 1925 not only this House, but the Dail and the Parliament in Belfast, guaranteed the present boundaries and that that guarantee was not given at our request, or that of Northern Ireland, but at the request of the Southern Irish politicians. I am led to believe—and I have never heard it contradicted—that in 1925 an independent boundary commission was sitting, that it was well known that the commission was going to propose that Northern Ireland should consist of nine counties and not six, and that it was at the instigation and request of the Southern Ireland politicians of that day that the report of that commission was not awaited when the terms of the 1925 Treaty were accepted by all three parties concerned.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: I do not think there was any suggestion that Northern Ireland should consist of nine counties. What was suggested, according to the Press, was that there was to be no change in the existing frontier but minor rectifications and that some Unionists outside Northern Ireland should be brought in.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am willing to accept that from my right hon. Friend. I was only quoting from information——

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): It ought to be made quite plain that this report was never published——

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I made that clear.

Mr. Ede: I have tried recently to get a copy of it, but I am told there is not one in existence——

Sir H. O'Neill: In the Library.

Mr. Ede: Not this one. Various summaries of what it is thought to have contained have from time to time appeared in the papers and in some biographies. I was reading during the weekend the biography of O'Higgins in which an allusion was made to this, but I know of no certain grounds at this stage for saying what was in the Report. I agree in the main from what can be discovered with what was said by the right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill).

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I did not pretend to know what was in it, but I stated what was said at the time and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will contradict that the actual pressure for the conclusion of the 1925 Agreement came from Southern Irish leaders and no other party whatever.

Mr. Mulvey: I feel that the senior Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) did not make the position clear. He referred to the fact that the boundary commission arranged to bring in outside areas from the Twenty-six Counties. He is quite right in that, but it also provided for transferring areas from the Six Counties to the Twenty-six Counties.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think that the Home Secretary has made the position clear: no one knows what this report contained. We have now heard three different versions of what it contained. The only point I wish to make and stand by is that it was in 1925, at the request of the politicians of Southern Ireland and of no one else, that Acts were passed by which this House, the Dail and the Parliament of Northern Ireland accepted the present boundaries of Ulster.
It has been said from time to time from the benches opposite that there is some element of force in regard to the present boundaries or some element of injustice dating back to many years before the present Parliament or any other Parliament of which any hon. Member of this House was a Member. That is completely untrue. The present boundaries were accepted by all the parties as a voluntary and final settlement. No one in this House has yet said that Ulster contains


a majority of Nationalists. There have been a great number of statements to the effect that this bit or that bit ought to be "hived off" and that the present position is a hardship to some part of Fermanagh or Tyrone. It is exactly the same hardship as that suffered by the county of Hampshire, which longs to be out of the administration of the present Socialist Government but is not allowed to be. [Interruption.] It is exactly the same. No one opposite would advocate or even permit the suggestion of secession by any part of this country which disliked the majority rule of the party opposite.
When hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about this question they are always producing the argument that it is time England or this House offered a further concession to Ireland. There is never any suggestion that Ireland should make a concession to this country: that is the one thing that never happens. When I was in Ireland a few days ago the argument was again put forward, "You have had to give way on land annuities, on the question of the position in 1921 and various other matters. Why not make a clean sweep and allow us to have this cessation of partition?" I replied, "Why do you not do something to show that you are for once willing to help in a general settlement? Why do you not come into the Atlantic Pact? Why do you not show that you are willing to play your part in Europe?" The only answer one received time and time again, and received from people who should be able to speak authoritatively, was that they were not prepared to do anything until they had secured what they considered to be the utmost concession from this country, and that until that happened, they were not willing to make or even interested in making any gesture to help.
The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) spoke about defence, and said that he had pleaded with Mr. de Valera that the ports which we ceded should be returned to us during the war. Supposing that that gesture had been made. What a different attitude we might have taken today if something had been done——

Mr. Logan: rose—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am perfectly prepared to give way to the hon.

Member if I may first finish my sentence. Having been a member of the Royal Navy, I saw something of what that lack of help cost us. I remember that when the surrender of these ports was announced in 1937, it was made the occasion of a series of mutual congratulatory speeches and exchanges of compliments between this country and Ireland. Yet as soon as it came to the test, Ireland, instead of recognising what we had done or had striven to do, made not the slightest effort to help us in the time of our need. Now they are asking us to make a further great sacrifice.
If one reads the statements made last week by Mr. Costello and Mr. de Valera in the Dail, both of which speeches I heard, they are seen to contain nothing except this vague sort of idea that if England would once again surrender we might find the Irish more receptive and more willing to give us help. That is an impossible proposition from the point of view of the many considerations of equity with which we on this side of the Committee are concerned.

Mr. J. Beattie: Do the Six Counties which are now under consideration belong to Ireland or to England?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The unfortunate answer, from the point of view of the hon. Member, is that they have the right to choose their own destiny, and that is something for which we on this side of the House will always stand.

Mr. Beattie: Does the hon. and gallant Member agree that the minority should overrule the majority?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: There is undoubtedly a majority of between 65 and 67 per cent. in the Six Counties at present for the maintenance of the present position; there can be no question of that to anyone who looks at the election returns.
Everyone who is participating in this Debate hopes and prays that we shall eventually be able to rid ourselves of this problem, but it is a problem which can only be solved if, for once, the Irish are prepared to give rather than merely to demand. If they are prepared to show that they will play their part in Western Europe, particularly in matters like the Atlantic Pact, if they will cease continually complaining about our misdeeds and


will recognise some of their own shortcomings, I am hopeful that we can solve the many issues which at present divide us. But so long as it is accepted by Members in this House that whatever complaint may be made by the Irish is correct, and that whatever efforts we have made are either insufficient or wrong, we shall never succeed. I hope, therefore, that out of this Debate one thing alone will become clear—that we are willing to be partners with Ireland or indeed with anyone who will go forward with us, but we shall never be put upon or listen to unreasonable arguments.

Mr. Bramall: Unlike the majority of my hon. Friends who have spoken about this paragraph, I wish to put forward some reasons why I think the House should support it. Of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends who oppose this paragraph, the one which I find hardest to understand is that it is slamming the door on the subject of partition, or that this paragraph makes partition permanent in a way in which it has not been permanent previously.
I should like to ask my hon. Friends what the position would be if this paragraph were not incorporated in the Bill. It is quite clear from the speeches that have been made that there are two opposing theories on this point. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) hopes that if this paragraph were omitted from the Bill, that that would in some way leave open to him and his Nationalist friends in Ireland the hope that the British Government would be willing to hand over the Six Counties of Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic, whether the population of Northern Ireland agreed or not. I am certain that that is not the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones). He and several other hon. Friends of mine appear to feel that if this paragraph were left out the matter would merely be left to lie fallow, that we could avoid making up our minds on this question. I fear that we cannot avoid making up our minds, whether this paragraph is in the Bill or not.
7.0 p.m.
We have to face squarely the problem before the British Government. Are we

seriously suggesting that this Government or any other Government of the United Kingdom should agree with the Irish Republic to the handing over and the incorporation into the Irish Republic of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland without consultation with the population of that Province? I cannot see that anyone can suggest that that in fact should happen.
Therefore, if one is not to say that should happen, then in this Clause we are merely saying that we are recognising the position as it exists; and are then stating, as this Clause does state, the constitutional means by which the present position is to be changed, if it is to be changed at all. That seems to me to be a very fair and proper thing to say. We are not slamming the door. This does not necessarily last for ever and ever as the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) suggested the learned Attorney-General said. We are not giving an unlimited guarantee as the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterly Jones) said.
What we are saying is that this position will not be changed except by the normal constitutional means; by the constitutional expression of opinion by Northern Ireland. I cannot see how anybody can suggest any other means of consultation with the people of Northern Ireland than through their Parliament. I agree with a great deal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). In fact, except for the conclusion, I agree with most of what he said when he spoke of the shortcomings of the regime at present in Northern Ireland. I detest that regime, I think it is most unpleasant——

Mr. Hale: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that while detesting this regime, while thinking it improper, he approves a Clause in which that regime is selected beyond the will of the Irish people?

Mr. Bramall: Perhaps my hon. Friend will do me the justice of believing that I had thought of the possibility of that argument being raised. If given time I was intending to develop my argument exactly in that direction, and that is what I hope I shall be able to do if he can restrain his impatience. It does appear to me that one has to devise some means of consultation.
As I say, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch that it is a most unpleasant police State which at present exists in Northern Ireland. But it does appear that that argument is totally irrelevant unless one is prepared to continue it to the point where one says that so much gerrymandering has taken place, that there is so much terror, that in fact what appears to be a majority for partition is really a minority. I do not believe that my hon. Friend or anybody else would seriously contend that there is in fact a majority for incorporation in the Republic in the present Six Counties of Northern Ireland. What they say, and undoubtedly with justice, is that the minority is larger than it is allowed by the Northern Ireland Government to appear to be. That is undoubtedly true, but it is still a minority; and I cannot see so long as there is only a minority that it is proper for this Government in the United Kingdom to say, "We will carry out the wishes of the minority rather than the majority."

Mr. Paget: What is to happen when one becomes satisfied that that minority of today has become the majority of tomorrow?

Mr. Bramall: Surely it is an odd argument, in terms of democracy, to say that we must carry out what the majority of the future will want, on the doubtful assumption it will want it——

Mr. Paget: Leave the future alone.

Mr. Bramall: —rather than allowing the decision of the present majority to prevail. Indeed, this argument has not been put forward at all, the argument that there is indeed a majority today. The argument put forward is that one should not in fact consider Northern Ireland as a separate entity at all. I do not think it is the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), or my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones), but the Irish Members on this side of the Committee who have spoken, undoubtedly argue that we should ignore Northern Ireland as an entity altogether.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) whom we had the privilege of hearing on the Second Reading Debate went so far as to say that the Almighty had intended the Irish to be one people. I have not the same close

acquaintance with the wishes of the Almighty as the hon. Member has, but from my unlearned observations it does seem to me that if that was His intention He has gone about it in a very strange way.

Mr. Mulvey: God designed the country as one unit, and we hoped it would remain as one unit. It should be one unit politically.

Mr. Bramall: I will accept the intentions of the Almighty from the hon. Member who appears to put himself forward as His interpreter.

Mr. Logan: Whilst I can understand the irrelevancies in regard to the Debate, I am not able at all to understand blasphemy. Observations have been made which ought not to have been made.

Mr. Bramall: I think that the hon. Member's observations do not call for any comment——

Mr. Logan: I hope that the hon. Member will take them to heart.

Mr. Bramall: This is the argument which has been put forward. I do not see how we in this Committee can seriously consider that we can wipe Northern Ireland out of existence as an entity. It has been pointed out time and again by hon. Members speaking against this Clause that it was this Parliament which brought the Northern Ireland Parliament and Government into existence. That may have been wrong. Whether or not I should have supported what was done in 1922—had I then been more than six years old—I do not know, but the fact is that what we have to accept is that it was done.
That State, that Government, that Parliament were brought into existence and have been recognised as existing from that time forward by every Government and Parliament in the United Kingdom. If we no longer believe they are competent to carry out their duties then we should legislate to take away those duties from them. But so long as they carry out those duties, and we are not prepared to pass legislation to take away those duties, we cannot remove from them their constitutional right to speak for the people of Northern Ireland. If we say that they have the right to speak for the people of Northern Ireland then surely they have the right to be consulted


before the destinies of their province are decided by this Government, or any outside Government. It appears to me therefore that this is not slamming the door——

Mr. Hale: To be consulted? Is that all my hon. Friend wants?

Mr. Bramall: They should have that right, and we are merely stating in this Clause how any change which might be desired in the future is to be brought about, if it is to be brought about at all.
How is the position, which I think the majority of hon. Members in this Committee desire—the unification of Ireland—to be brought about? I believe it will be brought about by stabilising the position. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch rightly pointed out that the political parties in the Irish Republic regarded this Clause as making the position worse. But I think it is only fair to point out, without any judgment of whether they are reasonable in that belief, that equally it is true that the majority political party in Northern Ireland believe that the action of the Irish Republic in declaring itself a Republic makes the position worse. Personally, I do not believe that either the declaration of the Republic or this Clause alters the position one bit. The reasons for people in Northern Ireland wishing either to join the Republic or stay out are either religious reasons or else economic reasons; and those reasons remain exactly the same today as they were before 18th April and before this Clause was published.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch said that the presence of this Clause would make it possible, and indeed today was making it possible, for politicians both North and South of the Border to stir up trouble. All I can say is that they have been stirring up trouble for the last 25 years or so without this Clause, and I doubt whether they needed its assistance to go on doing so. We all know that politicians on both sides of the Border, when they wish to cover up real economic or social difficulties, use this shibboleth of the Border in order to distract the attention of the people and I do not——

Colonel Haughton: As one having considerable interests on both sides, I

absolutely deny that I have ever done anything of the sort.

Mr. Bramall: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take it from me that in any reference of that type I certainly would not be referring to him. I know that he certainly would not do anything of that kind, but I do not think that he would deny that there are people who, to use a vulgar expression, have "waved the bloody shirt" to some effect, and they have used this method for that purpose.

Mr. Beattie: As I have been working for the economic and social welfare of the people for upwards of 30 years, does the remark made by the hon. Gentleman about politicians in the North and South stirring up trouble refer to me?

Mr. Bramall: Until the Second Reading Debate I had never been privileged to hear a speech by the hon. Member. I must say that he amply made up for that lack on that occasion. A great deal of what he said then stirred up much quite unnecessary strife.
The only way in which this issue of the Border will be settled will be by both sides accepting it as something, whether they like it or not, which can only be altered in a constitutional fashion. If it could be done I believe that there would be a possibility for the people of the North and South to make up their minds on political questions and matters of real importance and to discuss the real political economic and social conditions of the day. Then it is possible that we might get Governments in both the Republic and in Northern Ireland who would be willing to weigh up the economic and social arguments both for and against on this question of the Border and to come to a sensible and considered decision.
This Clause makes a necessary contribution to that stability. If we delete it there will be grave concern in Northern Ireland. Such an action would only be interpreted as meaning that in fact we intend to abolish partition. We know that that is what three Members from Northern Ireland would like to do. I am sure, however, that it is not the intention of those hon. Members who say that we should leave this matter alone. I do not believe that we can leave it alone. We must meet the concern in Northern Ireland with some declaration


one way or the other. I believe that this declaration of the proper constitutional position will help to stabilise the situation and make possible a proper settlement in future.

Mr. Eden: I do not propose to delay the Committee for very long, one reason being that when we are discussing matters such as this in Committee it is desirable that we should try to condense our speeches to the uttermost so that every point of view can be expressed. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) whom those of us who have been many years in this House not only respect but for whom we feel a large measure of affection. I heard him make his most eloquent plea about the loyal contribution of many Irishmen from Eire during the war. Of course, we all agree with what he said about that. There were also people from the North. I think that it was in the "Manchester Guardian" the other day that I read that perhaps the only time when it looked as though friendship might really grow up was after the severe bombing of Belfast when Dublin sent some fire engines to help to extinguish the flames. I shall try to provide a miniature fire engine this evening: I do not propose to fan the flames.
I have a particular reason for remembering Irishmen in the recent war, because I served for more than a year with a brigade drawn from both the North and South of Ireland. That, I can tell hon. Members, was some experience. When we were not in the field, the political arguments which used to take place were most remarkable to an Englishman's ears. I was not in the House when Irish Members were carrying on their Debates, but when listening today I thought that I was back in some of the Irish messes—I mean that in a military sense—which I used to attend.
7.15 p.m.
I want to bring the Committee back to the simple point. No one has explained so far what it is that is new that we are proposing to put into this Bill. I do not want to go back to the speeches made in 1912 or earlier. My responsibility dates from a later date. It is shared by some hon. Members present. If I remember rightly, I supported the agreement reached in 1925 to which reference

was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). I do not know what the secret antecedents of that 1925 agreement may have been. I do not know whether the move came first from the South or from the North. What I do know is that we were asked in this House then—and I was a Member of it—to approve that arrangement as one being entirely satisfactory to North and South and to us in Britain. The language is quite specific. The agreement which we then passed and approved between the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State recognises friendly relations. It states that the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Irish Free State—of which the present Southern Irish Government is the successor—
being united in amity in this undertaking with the Government of Northern Ireland …
That was a perfectly specific statement of where the Free State Government stood. That was the agreement which recognised the existing boundary of the Six Counties. That is where I stood in 1925. I am committed to that, and so are others of us who supported that agreement. So, I should have thought, were the successors to the then Government of the Free State. Nobody has expressed an opinion that what was not only accepted by this House then but what was thought right by every section of Irish opinion which expressed itself at that time——

Mr. Paget: Including Costello?

Mr. Eden: I do not know what Costello's thoughts were.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that this subsection makes a fundamental change in the relations of the Government of this country with the Government of Ireland?

Mr. Eden: The whole of my argument is that it makes no change at all. It merely expresses what is the present position.

Mr. Gallacher: No.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his case. I am stating the situation as it appears to me. All that is done is to repeat here what was said in the 1925


Agreement. At that time the Eire Government was presided over by Mr. Cosgrave.

Mr. McGovern: Is it not true that Mr. Cosgrave, not Mr. Costello——

Mr. Eden: I said Mr. Cosgrave.

Mr. McGovern: —had a struggle with Michael Collins against the very section in Ireland which did not want to accept the settlement, and that the settlement was imposed upon them on the threat of further and more terrible war against them?

Mr. Eden: Really, this Irish memory is past anything any Englishman can understand. This Agreement was not passed in 1922 or while the disturbances were going on. This is the 1925 Agreement—three years after.

Mr. McGovern: That was the outcome.

Mr. Eden: How far back have we to go? That is what we who are Englishmen facing this problem must weigh up. The hon. Gentleman can read the Debates of 1925. I forget whether he was in the House at that time.

Mr. McGovern: No.

Mr. Eden: If he reads them he will find that we were told that this was an Agreement which appeared to be one accepted by the majority of the Dail of the day. I think that that is a fair way to put it. Certainly there was a minority in the Dail who did not accept the Agreement. Can we never feel that anything is agreed unless every member of the Dail approves of it?

Mr. McGovern: I am not trying to make an unfair point. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the majority of the people of Southern Ireland were in favour of a united Ireland and not in favour of the boundaries created under the threat of more terrible war.

Mr. Eden: I have no right to interpret opinion in Southern Ireland, but I think it is quite conceivable that everybody in Southern Ireland felt that the final aim was the unity of Ireland. That is intelligible, and very likely that was their feeling, but I am dealing with this agreement which was accepted by

Southern Ireland at that time. That is all we have to deal with in this House, and I am asking for some explanation why it is that what was regarded as acceptable before, must now be left out of this Bill.

Mr. Delargy: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. For the purpose of argument, I will accept every single word he has said—that the partition of Ireland was agreed and was ratified by a statute of this House, and that no law affecting partition has ever been passed by this House since. This is the question I would put to the right hon. Gentleman. That being the case, why is it necessary to include this subsection now, because I think the legal consequence of it is that, if this subsection is now legally necessary, it is almost an admission that until now there has been no statutory sanction for partition at all?

Mr. Eden: No. I think there we come to the second part of the argument, which is—and I am afraid we must admit it—that it is the action of the Government of Eire which has created the new situation. It is not we who have suddenly done something since 1925, but the Government of Eire who have now cut the last remaining connection with the British Commonwealth family. As a result of their doing that, the Government here have to do something about it; otherwise, every Irishman in this country would be called a foreigner. In the process of doing something about it, we must restate the existing position and the unchanged undertaking which we have given to Northern Ireland. It is desperately simple and very clear, and I cannot understand why all this heat and indignation has been generated about it.
I want to say a word to the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie). He told us, strangest of all arguments, that Eire could not take her place among the nations while this situation continues. There is nothing to stop her. There was nothing to stop Mr. de Valera going to the League of Nations a great many times, where I met him as a colleague. There, and also in so many spheres of international discussions, we always agreed about everything, except this particular topic. That was 20 years ago. Why cannot they now manage——

Mr. Beattie: A country divided up by this Government is prevented from doing it.

Mr. Eden: It shows how difficult it is for people not having Irish grandmothers to understand Irish arguments. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) was much nearer the real issue about Ireland. He said that the lower standard of life and of social services in Southern Ireland has caused a good deal of reluctance on the part of some people to support union now.
I conclude with this simple comment. We should like to see Irish unity, if it can be got by agreement, but we do stand for this undertaking, which is no new one, but one which must be fulfilled. When an hon. Member says that Ireland is one geographical unit and that, therefore, the whole of Ireland ought to be one, I would ask where that argument in fact stops. The United Kingdom may be called one geographical unit but we all accepted that the Free State should leave it and even cut the last link with the Commonwealth. I do not know where this geographical unity ends. I do not think there is anything in the argument that, if a country is a geographical unit, it must necessarily be a political unit. So far as we are concerned, we consider that there is nothing novel in what was proposed, we have yet to be given any good reason for supposing that this is new, and, therefore, we shall support the Government in retaining the Clause.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Mr. Ede.

Mr. Hale: On a point of Order. I understood that we were to discuss a series of Amendments. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is now called, may I ask whether he will reply to the Amendment which stands in my name, which has not been moved and for the discussion of which no opportunity has yet been given, and in respect of which no argument has been put? Could you explain, Sir Charles, how the undertaking which was given before you came to the Chair—that the Amendment would be discussed—can be implemented?

The Temporary Chairman: The Amendments can only be moved as we come to them, and it is impossible to proceed with another until we have cleared the previous one out of the way.

I understand that the position is that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) will be moved, or that an opportunity will be afforded for him to move it when the time comes, and that there may be a Division on it without any discussion.

Mr. Charles Williams: Am I not right in saying that because the Home Secretary speaks now, it does not necessarily mean that that will be the end of the Debate, because some of us have been here a very long time trying to get in and shall want to carry on the discussion?

The Temporary Chairman: It certainly does not end the Debate, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, I cannot accept a Motion for the Closure.

Mr. Hale: Do I understand from your Ruling, Sir Charles, that the Amendment in my name may be moved by me without discussion? If so, may I ask how it comes to pass that such a decision has been made without the knowledge of the mover, who is now unable to discuss it and has a vow of silence imposed upon him? Do I understand that I am now being told that I shall not be able to discuss my own Amendment, whatever happens?

The Temporary Chairman: I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means stated that three Amendments would be discussed together, and I do not think there is anything exceptional in that. The usual procedure is that, if a Division is wanted on Amendments other than the first, that will be possible when the time comes.

Mr. Gallacher: There is a mistake here somewhere, because the Chairman of Ways and Means pulled up several hon. Members when speaking, for instance, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), and said they must not discuss certain matters in detail, because there would be a further discussion when the second part of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) was called.

The Temporary Chairman: I think the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is mistaken. The Amendment on which the Chairman intervened is that


in page 2, line 2, leave out "Parliament," and insert "people," not the one in page 1, line 12, leave out "or any part thereof."

Mr. Hale: May I ask for your guidance, Sir Charles? I think that, as I raised the original point of Order, I am entitled with very great respect to seek your guidance again. I regret having to raise this matter with you, but it appears that it arises out of a Ruling that was given before you came to occupy the Chair. May I ask your guidance whether there is any precedent of any kind for saying to an hon. Member of this House, who sat through the whole of the Second Reading Debate without being called and who has not left his seat in this Chamber since this discussion started shortly after half-past three, that he will not be called to move his Amendment, after a discussion which has been going on for nearly four hours, that he will not have an opportunity of adducing any arguments in support of it, and that a vote will be taken on it and no argument in relation to it will be allowed at all? If that is so, may I, with great respect, ask if I might have leave to move "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," in order that I might draw attention to what I consider to be the very unfair treatment of an hon. Member of this House?

The Temporary Chairman: Although the Home Secretary speaks now, the Debate may still go on, and it can go on until tomorrow if necessary.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I suffer from the same disability in this Debate as was announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in that, as far as I know, I have not a drop of blood other than English in my veins, and that, therefore, intervention in an Irish Debate is always a matter of some risk, and certainly raises feelings that make it very difficult to understand the temper of some of the participants in the discussion. We are dealing with the situation of today and not with the situation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) alluded, 700 years ago. We are faced today with a completely new situation which is not of our creation

but with which we have to deal as the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This paragraph, which it is proposed to leave out, says in the first place that in this matter of the ultimate destiny of North Ireland we are determined that physical force is not to be the arbitrating consideration.

Mr. McGovern: On both sides.

Mr. Ede: I have never yet heard anyone suggest that the North of Ireland is preparing a military attack on the South.

Mr. Beattie: Why declare war?

Mr. Ede: We have no intention of declaring war.

Mr. Beattie: Then why make such an inciting speech?

Mr. Ede: I am not making any inciting speech. I am endeavouring to deal with the facts as they are created, and I know that some of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have not yet found any adequate reason for the sudden declaration by Mr. Costello that he had found it necessary to cut the last link with the British Commonwealth.

Mr. Delargy: That is a great misrepresentation of my hon. Friends and myself. We are not here to defend any declaration made by Mr. Costello or anyone else. We are debating this Bill which ought to have nothing whatever to do with Mr. Costello.

Mr. Ede: As it is the action of Mr. Costello which is the cause of the Bill, it is very difficult to sustain that proposition, but I am glad to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) does not intend to attempt to defend the indefensible. This Bill and this paragraph would not have been before the Committee but for the action of Mr. Costello in severing the last very slender link with the British Commonwealth of Nations. In my view, and I believe in the view of some of my hon. Friends who have been attacking this paragraph this afternoon, he has made the question of the unity of Ireland more difficult than it has ever been before by his action in taking the Republic of Ireland, the 26 Counties, out of the British Commonwealth.
That is the cause of this Bill, and we have recognised in the Bill that that action of Mr. Costello's was within his right. It was within the right of the Parliament of Ireland to pass the law which they did and which came into effect on 18th April, but that being the position, and particularly in view of the name that Mr. Costello chose for his country under the new constitution, it was essential that some statement should be made first to the people of Northern Ireland and secondly, to the world as to the position in which we see the people of North Ireland standing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why was that essential?"] When there is a claim that a certain State is the Republic of Ireland, which might be misinterpreted by some people as meaning the Island of Ireland, I think it is essential to make it clear that there is a part of the Island which is not included in the Republic of Ireland.
I want to make it quite clear that the Government regard that declaration as essential, but we want to say something more. We do not regard this as being of necessity the final position with regard to this matter. I speak as one who, in 1906 and twice in 1910, voted for Home Rule as an elector, but I voted for Home Rule within the British Commonwealth of Nations. We have heard the name of Mr. Redmond mentioned this afternoon. He stood for Home Rule within the British Commonwealth of Nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), as a result of one of those researches which delight us so much, made a long quotation from a speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) when he was a Member of a Liberal Government and a supporter of Home Rule. He also was in favour of Home Rule within the British Commonwealth of Nations. At a particular stage in the discussions, when the speech from which my hon. Friend quoted was made, it had already been agreed that there should be an option for the counties in the North. In fact, my hon. Friend read a sentence which indicated that that was so.

Mr. Bing: Each county separately up to a period of six years.

Mr. Ede: But still, no matter whether they voted for North or South, they would still be within the British Commonwealth of Nations. Whether we like it or not,

the majority of the people of North Ireland as at present constituted, desire to remain not merely inside the United Kingdom, but inside the British Commonwealth of Nations, and a new situation has been created whereby if Irish unity is to be attained on the basis of the demand of the South, it must now be at the price of going out of the United Kingdom and out of the British Commonwealth of Nations. That is the situation with which this paragraph deals. What we assure the people of North Ireland by this paragraph is that they shall not by us be put out of the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth of Nations except with their consent. That is what we say, and if either by argument or by blandishments or in any other way a majority of the people of North Ireland can be induced to vote for going out of the Commonwealth, then the provisions of this paragraph do not prevent the appropriate arrangement being made.

Mr. Paget: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, which seems to me to be the one vital point, may I point out that that is not what this Bill provides? What it provides is that the Parliament of Northern Ireland can change the franchise. If we could get some guarantee that the franchise would include the people of Northern Ireland at any future date, it would satisfy me and a great many others as well.

Mr. Ede: You will recollect, Sir Charles, that the Chairman of Ways and Means has already ruled that that particular point may not be dealt with on these Amendments. It has to be dealt with on the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) which, I understand, is to be called later. That was why I did not direct my argument to it. The question as to how the opinion of Northern Ireland is to be ascertained is not an issue in the Amendments now before us but will be raised on a subsequent Amendment and, if and when we reach that Amendment, I shall have something to say about it.
I would direct the attention of the House to what has been the shortest speech in this Debate but to my mind one of the most important—the very calm, clear statement made by the hon. and gallant junior Member for the County of Antrim (Colonel Haughton). It was a speech which showed no rancour,


no delving back into the dim mists of the past, but concerned what he said he had seen and heard in Dublin during the past four days. I cannot help thinking that if this paragraph had not been justified before, it would have been justified by the posters which have appeared in Dublin during the last 48 hours.

Mr. McGovern: But that is a result of this Clause.

Mr. Ede: There is nothing in the Clause which justifies the issue of a poster urging people to arm for an immediate attack on the North. The hon. and gallant Member made a statement about that which was not contradicted at the time. I have seen similar reports in the London newspapers and I am therefore entitled to assume, on the witness of the hon. and gallant Member and on the reports, that it is in fact the case.

Colonel Haughton: I saw that poster with my own eyes in Dublin this morning—on a van in Harcourt Street.

Mr. Ede: In view of that situation, Sir Charles, it is essential that this Parliament should make it quite clear that while it will welcome anything that is the result of reason, argument and of friendly approaches made to bring the two parts of Ireland together, what we cannot countenance is anything that attempts to secure the unity of Ireland by the threat of force on one side or the other. In view of the history of this matter I should have hoped that that proposition would command universal assent in this House.
It has been said today by some of my hon. Friends who have taken part in this Debate that in some way or other, this House has taken six counties away from the Governments that from time to time have been in power in Southern Ireland. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not want again to go all over the argument so clearly set out by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington with regard to what happened in 1925. I should like to say this with regard to it, however: to the Commission that prepared that Report, Southern Ireland sent a member, but the North of Ireland refused to send a member and, in fact, the member who was

supposed to represent Northern Ireland was nominated by the Government of the United Kingdom. While it would be easier to argue that the Act of 1925 was not very welcome to North Ireland, there could no doubt about the full participation of South Ireland in all the negotiations that led up to the passing of that Act. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Tory Government."] It does not matter whether it was a Tory Government or any other kind of Government. What, in fact, happened was that North Ireland, for some reason or other best known to itself, declined to come into the Commission.

Sir H. O'Neill: The reason why Northern Ireland declined to appoint a member to that Commission was because they were perfectly satisfied with the six counties which had been given to them by the Act of 1920. It was the South who wished to change the boundaries.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I do not want to hold an inquest and to bring in a verdict, but I think it might have been better for us at the present time, and in the intervening years, if North Ireland, knowing that a Commission was to be appointed, had participated in it. I think the fact that they were satisfied does not matter so very much.
The Committee has to make up its mind on this: in view of the action of Mr. Costello's Government in going out of the British Commonwealth of Nations, what are we to say to those people who are as much part of the United Kingdom today as are the people who live in Hampshire or Surrey or Durham and who desire to remain in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Mulvey: Only two-thirds of the population of the north wish to remain there.

Mr. Ede: At any time when I can collect the views of my constituents and feel that two-thirds of them support a particular line, I think I have a sufficient majority to regard the vote binding the whole. One cannot accept the position that because the one-third object, therefore the two-thirds must accept the view of the one-third.
The only other argument to which I think I need address myself is that which is advanced when hon. Members say that


one should have regard not to the feeling of Northern Ireland in this matter but to the feeling of the whole of Ireland; that if one could get the whole of Ireland—that is, the whole of the island of Ireland—to take a particular view one need not worry about the way in which the votes may be distributed in different parts of the island. I suggest that we have to face up to the fact that the North of Ireland has a very considerable population which, by origins of race and political associations, find themselves more akin to Scotland than to the South of Ireland. They are not English in their outlook; they are, in the main, Scottish in their outlook and they form a reasonably well-marked section of the population in an area that can be reasonably defined geographically; and that being so, and their desire being strong to remain with the United Kingdom and inside the Commonwealth, we have no right, as fellow members of the United Kingdom, to expel them—for that is what it would be—from an association which they value and which has been of the greatest possible value to this country.

Mr. Beattie: The right hon. Gentleman did long ago.

Mr. Ede: No, really, I did not. I am getting pretty long in the tooth—or I would be if I had any teeth left—but really I am not responsible for the plantation of Ulster. I am not going to defend the plantation of Ulster. After all, that has been done.
I only wish that Irishmen on both sides of the Border could some time live for about a fortnight in today, instead of always living in the remote past. I do not think that any Irishman can ever read a history book with great pleasure after he is 20 years of age, for he finds nothing new; he has never forgotten anything. Even the Scots can forget. They cannot forget Bannockburn, but I once went to Dunbar and thought I should like to see the battlefield of Dunbar. In the town I bought a guidebook to Dunbar. The battle was not mentioned in it. There was a long chapter about a lady called Black Agnes, who, as far as I could gather, deserved the title. I asked people in the town if they could tell me where the battle was fought, and they asked me, "What battle?" The English and

Scots do manage both to forgive and forget and to live in the present with their eyes looking forward.
I appeal to Irishmen of all ranks to live in today, to realise the passionate desire of certain people—a majority in Northern Ireland—to remain inside the United Kingdom and inside the British Commonwealth of Nations. I hope that as a result of their so looking at things we may come to a time when it will be possible for Irishmen to be united. But that unity must be unity without the coercion of either the South or the North. It must be unity on a basis to which both can agree. I very sincerely hope that the unfortunate action of Mr. Costello in going out of the British Commonwealth will not too long delay the consummation of unity, of the coming of the time when Irishmen will be able to live in the present with the past forgotten.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, I wonder whether he will answer a question? He asked a rhetorical question just now. He asked what the House would do in view of the situation created by Mr. Costello. He has overlooked the fact that there is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones), and which is under discussion at the present time, and he has not addressed one word to it. Would he say what he would do about that Amendment?

Mr. Ede: I thought the whole of my argument had been directed towards that point. If we accept the Amendment, and leave out the words it proposes to leave out, we have a declaration for ever and ever—so far as this Committee can make such a declaration—that the matter will never be re-opened. What the Clause says is, that if there is the consent of the Irish Parliament—whether it will be the Irish Parliament or Irish people we can discuss——

Mr. Mallalieu: My right hon. Friend has got the wrong Amendment. I am speaking of the one in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin in page 1, line 11, to leave out from "Kingdom," to the end of line 2, in page 2. Plainly, my hon. Friend wishes to give a guarantee to Northern Ireland, but not in the terms of the Bill. That is the


point, and I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend will address his remarks to it.

Mr. Ede: As I understand it, if that Amendment were adopted by the Clause would be a declaration for all time. By leaving in the words the Amendment would leave out we make it quite clear that if Irishmen can agree on this issue, then that will be a matter for the House of Commons to consider in the light of that agreement. I should have thought that that was a desirable position in which to leave the matter.

Mr. Hale: I think my right hon. Friend was under a misapprehension in the last answer he gave. The Clause starts by declaring that Northern Ireland remains a part of His Majesty's Dominions and part of the United Kingdom, and the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) suggests that the Clause should end there. There is nothing about that which gives any irrevocable undertaking or makes any irrevocable decision. I find myself in a little difficulty here. I do not know whether I could have the guidance of the Chair? I do not know whether I am entitled to ask for that guidance in the matter. There are two consecutive Amendments which I have drafted to this Clause, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "or any part thereof," and in page 2, line 2, to leave out "Parliament," and to insert "people." The Amendments are intended to be two parts of a consecutive whole. They are intended to restore to the Clause the precise words of the undertaking that the Prime Minister gave on this matter, the undertaking he gave to the people of Northern Ireland. I understand that the second Amendment is being called separately and will be the subject of a separate vote. I am in this position. I hope I may put it with every possible reticence and respect to the Chair.
The remarks I would wish to make now on the Amendment under discussion, to leave out the words "or any part thereof," would be comparatively few. I apprehend it is impossible for me to seek any indication of what course the Chair is likely to take, but I have remained so invisible to the Chair for some con-

siderable time that I began to doubt my own existence, and I am reluctant to resume my seat at this moment without submitting certain arguments I would wish to submit on the second Amendment, which are clearly in Order at this stage, because the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin clearly gives rise to much the same remarks. However, I would defer, if it would be for the convenience of the Committee, the rather detailed references I wish to make to the reference to "Parliament" until my second Amendment is called, for they would be more appropriate to that Amendment, if it were possible for me to ascertain how far it is likely that I may catch your eye, Major Milner
So far as my first Amendment is concerned, to leave out the words "or any part thereof," I want at the opening to say what it is time, I think, someone on this side said very clearly—that there is scarcely a word the Home Secretary said with which I do not agree, and there is not a single word the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said either today or on Second Reading with which I was not in complete agreement. I deplore the speeches that have been made in Dublin. They have done a great deal of harm to the cause of ultimate Irish unity. I deplore some of the arguments I have heard in this Committee today on both sides.
I deplore the decision of the Republic of Ireland to leave the British Commonwealth of Nations. I think it was a decision that was not actuated by economic motives, and was not dictated by any long view of the future welfare of Ireland. I am not suggesting, and I do not believe that any of my colleagues with whom I am associated are suggesting, that the people of Northern Ireland should be forced out of the United Kingdom against their will. We do not suggest that at all. However, we are entitled to ask the Home Secretary or the Lord President of the Council, who has attended some of these deliberations, to say what really is the meaning of the words of the Clause.
8.0 p.m.
The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, on the Second Reading, said that an Act of Parliament does not


bind any subsequent Parliament and a new Parliament could repeal it. That is perfectly right, and one accepts it. There is, however, a rule of continuity in engagements which approaches the realm of treaty-making. There is a rule of continuity in dealing with the affairs of other nations or dealing with the affairs of parts of our own nation which involve decisions affecting the welfare of other nations. In other words, the undertaking which the Prime Minister gave, which is by its nature the exercise of the powers of the Crown, has some permanency and gives more security to the people of Northern Ireland than the words of a statute which could be repealed. It is one of the prime rules of our Constitution that a statute can be repealed.
Up to now, the people arguing this matter on both sides are faced with an unescapable antithesis. First, the supporters of the Clause are saying, "After all the words do not mean much and they do not alter the position." Those in response to the attack are saying, "We must keep these words whatever happens." At the same time, we are saying that there may be some dark significance in these words which may fall to be determined in the future. If that is true—and it cannot be disputed by anyone—there is one clear answer: If the words do not alter the position there is no reason why they should go in. If they do alter the position, we are entitled to know how they alter the position. That is the first point. We must then follow it to the second, and wonder what are the mechanics provided in this Clause to implement this decision.
Let us assume that the words mean something and the matter is to be referred to the Parliament of Northern Ireland; that somehow or other their decision is to be taken. How is it contemplated that any such decision should be taken? I apprehend the procedure which may be envisaged would be that an Act of this House could dispose of certain possibilities with regard to the future of Ireland, subject to the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. What is the constitutional position in that case? The Parliament of Northern Ireland has three branches, just as ours has. There is the Crown, the Senate and the elected House. There are, however, quite different provisions for dealing with a dispute between

the elected House and the Senate. If such a decision came before the elected House and was approved by them and not by the Senate, it would have to wait two years and then refer it to a general decision to be decided by a majority. If that were done, it may be that the majority—not the elected majority but the majority created by the addition of the Senate—would decide for the preservation of the status quo and the Act would pass to the Governor in the exercise of his right as representative of the Crown.

The Chairman: The hon. Member seems to be addressing himself to a subsequent Amendment in his name. That is not a matter for discussion on the present Amendment.

Mr. Hale: I attempted to indicate, as far as I could, and realising the difficulty of making the intimation, that I would be happy to discuss this matter on the second Amendment. I must submit, with all respect, that unless I can have an indication that I may catch your eye, Major Milner, on the second Amendment and discuss it, then——

The Chairman: I understand that my predecessor in the Chair indicated that it is proposed to select the Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 2, in the name of the hon. Member and that promise will, of course, be adhered to. That Amendment will be called in due course. It does not seem to me, therefore, that a great deal can be said on the Amendment in the hon. Member's name which has presumably been already dealt with by the hon. Member whose name is also attached to it.

Mr. Hale: I am anxious to accommodate myself to the wishes of the Committee. I thought that I had made it clear in my opening sentences, and I waited for some indication from the Chair that that course would be followed, but no indication was given. If it is the intention to call the Amendment in my name, I am much obliged. In that case, I will confine myself to the Amendment to which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council in a sense referred in the Second Reading Debate, to leave out the words: "or any parts thereof." Reference was made to


that by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells). My right hon. Friend said:
I see the point. On the other hand, if we are to have a nibbling process whereby we are trying to get an exact boundary. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1959.]
I do not suggest for a moment the nibbling process. I suggest that we should not lay down as a law of the Medes and Persians a firm ruling which would destroy the right to abrogate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out to the second word 'and' in line 11 stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 345; Noes, 21.

Division No. 139.]
AYES
[8.8 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Head, Brig. A. H.


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Deer, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Diamond, J.
Herbison, Miss M.


Alpass, J. H.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Dobbie, W.
Hobson, C. R.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Dodds, N. N.
Hollis, M. C.


Attewell, H. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Holman, P.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Donner, P. W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Bacon, Miss A.
Donovan, T.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Baldwin, A. E.
Drayson, G. B.
Hope, Lord J.


Balfour, A.
Drewe, C.
Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)


Barlow, Sir J.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hoy, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Barstow, P. G.
Dumpleton; C. W.
Hutchison, Lt-Cdr, Clark (Edin'gh, W.)


Battley, J. R.
Dye, S.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Berry, H.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Janner, B.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Jay, D. P. T.


Binns, J.
Erroll, F. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jenkins, R. H.


Bottomley, A. G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Johnston, Douglas


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Farthing, W. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Bower, N.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Foot, M. M.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Forman, J. C.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Bramall, E. A.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Keeling, E. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.
Fox, Sir G.
Kendall, W. D.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
King, E. M.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Brown, George (Belper)
Gage, C.
Kinley, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (Pike)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Callaghan, James
Gibson, C. W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Carson, E.
Gilzean, A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Champion, A. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Leslie, J. R.


Chater, D.
Goodrich, H. E.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A (Wakefield)
Lindgren, G. S.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Cluse, W. S.
Grey, C. F.
Linstead, H. N.


Cobb, F. A.
Gridley, Sir A.
Lipson, D. L.


Cocks, F. S.
Grierson, E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Cole, T. L.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Collins, V. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Lyne, A. W.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
McAdam, W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvill
McAllister, G.


Cooper, G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
McFarlane, C. S.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Harden, J. R. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Cove, W. G.
Hardy, E. A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Crawley, A.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Daggar, G.
Harrison, J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Daines, P.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Haughton, Colonel S. G. (Antrim)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Haworth, J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)




Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Marples, A. E.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Raikes, H. V.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Randall, H. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Ranger, J.
Thorp, Brigadier, R. A. F.


Maude, J. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Titterington, M. F.


Mellor, Sir J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Tolley, L.


Messer, F.
Renton, D.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mitchison, G. R.
Robens, A.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Usborne, Henry


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Vane, W. M. F.


Morley, R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Ropner, Col. L.
Walkden, E.


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Walker, G. H.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Walker-Smith, D.


Mort, D. L.
Royle, C.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Moyle, A.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E)


Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Sargood, R.
Warbey, W. N.


Murray, J. D.
Segal, Dr. S.
Watkins, T. E.


Nally, W.
Sharp, Granville
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
West, D. G.


Nicholson, G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Nield, B. (Chester)
Simmons, C. J.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Skinnard, F. W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wigg, George


Nutting, Anthony
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Odey, G. W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Oliver, G. H.
Smithers, Sir W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Paget, R. T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Willis, E.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Steele, T.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Pargiter, G. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Parker, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Stross, Dr. B.
Woods, G. S.


Pearson, A.
Stubbs, A. E.
Wyatt, W.


Peart, T. F.
Studholme, H. G.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Sutcliffe, H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Pickthorn, K.
Sylvester, G. O.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Symonds, A. L.



Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Popplewell, E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Logan, D. G.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Longden, F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Stokes, R. R.


Delargy, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Timmons, J.


Gallacher, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Naylor, T. E.



Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Keenan, W.
Rankin, J.
Mr. Mulvey and Mr. Cunningham.


Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. There appears to be some confusion. I understood that we were voting on the Amendment to delete paragraph (b), with the result that many of those who support the next Amendment, in line 11, did not vote or voted with the Government; whereas now we are told that we were voting on the second Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) desire

his Amendment to be called for the purposes of a Division?

Mr. Asterley Jones: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from "Kingdom" to the end of line 2, page 2.

Question put, "That the words proposed be left out to the word 'or' in line 12, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 324; Noes 48.

Division No. 140.]
AYES
[8.22 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Linstead, H. N.


Albu, A. H.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lipson, D. L.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Farthing, W. J.
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lucas-Tooth, S. H.


Alpass, J. H.
Foot, M. M.
Lyne, A. W.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Forman, J. C.
McAdam, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Fox, Sir G.
McFarlane, C. S.


Bacon, Miss A.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Balfour, A.
Gage, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Barlow, Sir J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Barstow, P. G.
Gibson, C. W.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Barton, C.
Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Battley, J. R.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Goodrich, H. E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Marples, A. E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Grenfell, D. R.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Berry, H.
Grey, C. F.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Gridley, Sir A.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Binns, J.
Grierson, E.
Maude, J. C.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.


Bottomley, A. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mellor, Sir J.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Messer, F.


Bower, N.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mitchison, G. R.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Moody, A. S.


Bramall, E. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Morley, R.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Harden, J. R. E.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hardy, E. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham, E)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Brown, George (Belper)
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ)
Mort, D. L.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Harrison, J.
Moyle, A.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mullan, Lt. C. H.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Haughton, S. G.
Murray, J. D.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Haworth, J.
Nally, W.


Callaghan, James
Head, Brig. A. H.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Carson, E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Neill, Sir William (Belfast, N.)


Challen, C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Champion, A. J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nicholson, G.


Chater, D.
Herbison, Miss M.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hewitson, Capt M.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Cluse, W. S.
Hollis, M. C.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Cobb, F. A.
Holman, P.
Nutting, Anthony


Cocks, F. S.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Odey, G. W.


Cole, T. L.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Oliver, G. H.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hope, Lord J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Houghton, A. L. N. D.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hoy, J.
Paget, R. T.


Cooper, G.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parker, J.


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Daggar, G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pickthorn, K.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jay, D. P. T.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Popplewell, E.


Deer, G.
Jenkins, R. H.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Johnston, Douglas
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Diamond, J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Proctor, W. T.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Raikes, H. V.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.




Donner, P. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Randall, H. E.


Donovan, T.
Kendall, W. D.
Ranger, J.


Drayson, G. B.
King, E. M.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Drewe, C.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Reeves, J.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kinley, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Renton, D.


Dye, S.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robens, A.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Ropner, Col. L.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Lindgren, G. S.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Erroll, F. J.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)







Sanderson, Sir F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Sargood, R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Segal, Dr S.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Sharp, Granville
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Whiteley, Rt Hon. W.


Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Wigg, George


Shinwell, Rt Hon E.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Simmons, C. J.
Thurtle, Ernest
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Titterington, M. F.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Tolley, L.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Smithers, Sir W.
Ungoed-Thomas L.
Willis, E.


Snow, J. W.
Usborne, Henry
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Sorensen, R. W.
Vane, W. M. F.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Walkden, E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Steele, T.
Walker, G. H.
Woods, G. S.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Walker-Smith, D.
Wyatt, W.


Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
York, C.


Stross, Dr. B.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Patrick)


Stubbs, A. E.
Warbey, W. N.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Studholme, H. G.
Watkins, T. E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Sutcliffe, H.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)



Sylvester, G. O.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Symonds, A. L.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Mr. Collindridge and


Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
West, D. G.
Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Keenan, W.
Rankin, J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Leslie, J. R.
Royle, C.


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Lewis, J. (Belton)
Scollan, T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Longden, F.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Collins, V. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Skinnard, F. W.


Cunningham, P.
McGovern, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Daines, P.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stokes, R. R.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Delargy, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mikardo, Ian
Viant, S. P.


Fairhurst, F.
Mulvey, A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Gallacher, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Horabin, T. L.
Parkin, B. T.
Yates, V. F.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)



Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pritt, D. N.
Mr. Ewart and Mr. Rogers.

8.30 p.m.

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) desire to move his Amendment, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "or any part thereof?"

Mr. Hale: No, Major Milner.

The Chairman: The next Amendment I propose to call is in page 2, line 2, leave out "Parliament," and insert "people." I ought perhaps to say for the information of the Committee that it would not be in Order, on this Amendment, to discuss the different methods whereby the people of Northern Ireland may take any decision, as that would go far beyond the bounds of the Amendment.

Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "Parliament," and to insert "people."
I am grateful to you for that Ruling, Major Milner, but although certain definitions of the word "plebiscite" have

already been given in advance may I say that I am not committed to any such definition? In the remarks I made a short time ago I tried to make clear the position which I and many on this side take up in this matter. It happens to be the Socialist position, and it is right that it should be stated. We believe in the free determination of free peoples. We believe in the general right of self-determination, and that the people who, in years gone by, saw a vision of a united Ireland saw a vision that was worth while and one that can be attained.
This Clause has been discussed for something like 12 to 14 hours so far, but no one has yet told us what it means. No one has yet suggested why it has been put into the Bill, or any mechanics by which the Clause can be implemented. I referred just now to the constitutional position, and I hope I shall be forgiven if I amplify a little what I have already said. First, this Parliament can never at


any time abrogate the power of any future Parliament. Whatever we say is subject to revocation by any future Parliament, and it is for that reason that over the centuries there has evolved the doctrine of the power of the Crown, exercisable by the Cabinet, which left constitutional matters to be dealt with by the Crown and decided by the Cabinet, and left Parliament only the right to turn out the Government if it disagreed with them on a major issue. Now, however, the Committee is seeking to do something which has never been done before, something which either means nothing at all and is, therefore, unfair to the people of Northern Ireland, or something which we have not the power or right to do and which, if we had, would mean an alteration of the Constitution. We have no right to guarantee the position.
Second, and much more fundamental, is that we have not got the right not merely to alter the position but to delegate our powers to a Parliament which we have expressly decided, by statute, shall have no right even to discuss Measures of this kind. The powers of legislation of the Parliament of Northern Ireland are set out in Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Under that Section, which has been slightly amended without substantially affecting it, its powers are strictly limited. It can discuss internal matters—matters of administration—but on a matter of this kind, if it sought to exercise a view at all, Parliament has already said:
Any law made in contravention of the limitations imposed by the section shall, so far as it contravenes those limitations, be void.
I should like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who, I see, is just back——

Mr. Ede: I have not been away.

Mr. Hale: I accept that my right hon. Friend is a constant attender in this House. I thought I had missed him for a short time, which shows how much I value his presence. The impression was firmly in my mind that he was absent for a short time; it may be that he was absent when voting in what I conceive to be the wrong Lobby.
I ask my right hon. Friend to say what the Parliament of Northern Ireland

should do if it was ever called upon to implement the rights which it is purported to give it by this Clause? Should it pass an Act of Parliament through the Lower House, through the Senate and subject to the approval of the Crown? Are we to contemplate a position in which this House could give to the Northern Ireland Parliament the right to decide this matter in that way, that it could have the Royal Assent given to that Act, but that if it said "No, we do not wish to do this," the Royal Assent would be given through the Governor? If so, we are invoking a constitutional crisis of some magnitude. All we are asking is to be told what the Clause means, what it is intended for, who it is in aid of, how it can be worked and for what purpose it has been put into the Bill. That is a request we have been making since the Second Reading, but which has not yet been granted.
I felt I was being a friend to the Government in this matter in putting down an Amendment which, I believe, could quite easily be accepted. It is in precisely the same words as the undertaking given by the Prime Minister to the Irish people in a statement he made on this matter. No reason has been given why it cannot be accepted. It seems that my right hon. Friend is about to interrupt to say that he has not yet had a chance of replying. I accept that, but before he replies may I remind him of a very old Chinese proverb—that in matters of this kind half an ounce of reason is worth more than two pounds of a three-line Whip?
I am sure it will not have escaped my right hon. Friend's attention that up to now every speaker from these benches, with one exception, has spoken against the Clause. It may not have escaped his attention also that from the other benches every speaker has supported the Government. It is a position which one faces with some regret. I am sure my right hon. Friend would not derive much assistance from the solitary voice from these benches of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall). His point was—and I think I am putting it quite fairly—that we could bring about fusion by stabilising partition. It is an argument I fail to understand, and I do not know if anyone on these benches understands it.
We have had the privilege of hearing many Irish voices in the course of two days' discussion—many rare and refreshing Irish voices. We heard in the course of the Debate one single, ill-judged speech, that by the right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) who spoke about hoisting the fat into the fire with a petard. But in this discussion there has been only one solitary voice in favour of the Government, and it was as I say based on the argument that we should bring about fusion by stabilising partition.
There are people who have no part or let in this controversy who desire to say, as I desire to say, that this is a magnanimous and generous Bill, for which I voted on Second Reading without hesitation. We desire to say that we deplore the speeches that have been made in Southern Ireland in the last week, and we would say to Mr. Costello if we could, that he has made the task of his own supporters and of those who believe in united Ireland much more difficult with foolish belligerency and foolish exaggeration of words. If the right hon. Member for Antrim had been here I would have said something similar about the speech which he made on Second Reading which was a deplorable speech.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Disgraceful.

Mr. Hale: It was considered in advance, because it was read to the House word by word, and he had not, therefore, the excuse of having committed an involuntary or accidental indiscretion. I have mentioned the right hon. Member for Antrim, and may I say in the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Colonel Haughton) that, though no one would doubt he holds his views with equal sincerity, if there were more on either side of the character and calibre of the hon. and gallant Member, and more men prepared in this matter to show the same quality of understanding and forebearance and the real desire to bring about the competing parties and resolve disputes, the problem of Ireland would not be insoluble, and the vision of a united Ireland would not be unattainable.
This is a great vision. I said when I rose that no one wishes to force the people of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom against their will, at least, no sane person does. No one wishes

to take a stand which today—and we appreciate the difficulty—would encourage the extremists on either side to take the extreme course. We want to have understanding, but this party on these benches has declared itself in favour of a united world as an aspiration to which we must work; it has declared itself generally in favour of a united Western Europe for the moment as an inspiration to which we should work; and surely the aspiration of a united Ireland, united as it always has been economically, united as inevitably it must be geographically, is one which commends itself to the heart of everyone sitting on these benches and who has been associated with this great movement in the years gone by.
It is right that I should refer to what was said by the Attorney-General in replying to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd Carpenter), who moved the first Amendment today. I took a careful note of what my right hon. and learned Friend said, and I want in all fairness to say that no doubt it was not being said with regard to this Amendment, and, therefore, the wording is not as carefully chosen as the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words normally are. He said that this Bill meant that Northern Ireland will always remain associated with the United Kingdom unless and until the Parliament of Northern Ireland otherwise decides. That was the interpretation put upon the matter by the Attorney-General. It is the interpretation put upon the Clause by most people reading it who have not heard the various explanations given. It is the ordinary interpretation which words ordinarily mean.
8.45 p.m.
It means, therefore, that either we are doing a fraud on the people of Northern Ireland by saying something we cannot mean, for we cannot bind our successors; or delegating power to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, which the only speaker supporting the Government on these back benches described as menial and corrupt—I am not quoting his words with precision but certainly he said it was unfit to discharge its duties—and so leaving the decision to them.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member could not have heard the whole of my speech, for I made it clear that


this Parliament could not bind its successors in a matter of law. I also said that in those circumstances this Parliament was by the use of the wording "affirms," solemnly stating that it was the policy of all parties represented in this Parliament that that should be the position, but, of course, future Parliaments remain entitled to decide what they think right about the matter.

Mr. Hale: I appreciate that, and I accept every word which my right hon. and learned Friend has said. I do not think that I said anything to the contrary. What I did say was that the purpose of the Bill was to declare that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom until the Parliament of Northern Ireland decided otherwise. If my right hon. and learned Friend wants to suggest that my recollection is inaccurate in that; or that he did not mean that; or that the Clause does not mean that; or that it means something else, I shall willingly give way to allow him to explain what the Clause does mean precisely. If the offer is not accepted——

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman challenges me to repeat for the fourth time what I have explained to the Committee only a minute ago and also five hours ago I am ready so to do. This Bill affirms the solemn intention of all parties represented in this Parliament that Northern Ireland should not be excluded from the United Kingdom without its consent. It affirms that as being the view of all parties in this Parliament, knowing, however, that every subsequent Parliament will be free, if it so desires, to come to a contrary conclusion. It is, in effect, a pledge to Northern Ireland of almost exactly the same kind that was made to the Commonwealth countries in Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster.

Mr. Hale: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted a rather difficult illustration in referring to the Statute of Westminster. I am quite sure he would not like me to ask him to amplify his observations about the Statute of Westminster, which certainly conveyed to the Dominions that irrevocable steps had been taken and that that Statute could never be revoked. He is hardly going to argue that the status given to Canada could be revoked. We might declare that

it could be done, but there is a fait accompli and if there is a fait accompli it does not matter what pious expressions are uttered.
That is why it is important that this Committee should know that it is wrong to commit itself to a mere affirmative of a view. It was never the purpose of an Act of Parliament to affirm a view. It was never the purpose of an Act of Parliament to usurp the treaty-making powers of the Crown or the powers of negotiation which the Crown possesses. What we have to do is to decide on the facts and give effect to them, but if we are to spend our time affirming without much clarity and without any machinery on some matter, then we are entitled to have a much fuller explanation than we have had on this matter.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman who replies to answer one question which has not yet been answered. The Prime Minister has already given an assurance—an assurance of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom speaking in the name of the Cabinet, an assurance which binds this House except in so far as the House can upset it by turning out the Government. It gives to the Parliament of Northern Ireland an asurance which carries with it a promise of a continuity which my right hon. and learned Friend has just said this House can never give, because any future House of Commons can revoke it at any time.
Why is it thought necessary to embody these words in the Bill if they do no more than carry out what has already been said by the Prime Minister? What great importance is attached to them? What is it thought is achieved by the Bill that has not already been achieved? Who was it suggested that these words, which involve after all a considerable betrayal of Socialist apiration if they mean anything, should be incorporated in the Bill at all? I therefore move the Amendment and in doing so I want to make it clear that I shall have no hesitation, if the Government feel that they cannot accept it, in carrying my Amendment into the Division Lobby. The ultimate vision of a united Ireland has illuminated the pages of history for centuries. It was the vision which Emmett saw upon the scaffold. It is a vision for which much blood has been shed. It is the vision that all of us who love that country and love the


Irish people, whether they be north or south of the Border, can share, can look forward to with hope, and can work for.
I want to see an Ireland united from the Glens of Antrim to the Lakes of Killarney, from the fuchsia hedges of Connemara across to Dublin, and from Donegal to Wexford. I do not want to take part tonight in laying down in an Act of Parliament that there shall be a closed door in negotiations with the Irish people. I have tried to say no word which would exacerbate the situation and I have tried to put as temperately as I can the case for the Amendment which stands in my name.

Mr. Fairhurst: I support the Amendment and I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by repeating what has been said. The wording of the paragraph suggests to me that the Government have made up their minds in this matter, although the House may think otherwise. I must say here and now that I shall follow my colleague into the Division Lobby against the Government in this matter. I wish for the kind of Ireland that we knew 25 or 30 years ago, whose people everyone could love and respect. I want an Ireland that can determine its future destiny as one homogeneous whole. The future, and not the distant future, will prove that this House is now being asked to take a step and to give a concession that it will never regret.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) made one or two observations which I thought apt and significant. He made comparisons involving what could happen in this country if Northern Ireland decided that they did not want to collaborate with this House in the future. It appeared fantastic to some hon. Members but is it so fantastic? Hundreds of years ago, when we were fighting to bring this country into one common union, we had the Wars of the Roses and other conflicts taking place year after year——

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member is carrying his arguments much too far. The Amendment is concerned only with substituting the word "people" for the word "Parliament" in the paragraph.

Mr. Fairhurst: May I point out, Mr. Bowles, that you allowed a certain licence

prior to my speech and that I do not see why you should not allow it to me? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I beg your pardon. I think you know, Mr. Bowles, that I have no intention of making any comment on what you had said on this point.
If what we have heard this afternoon is true, that certain political people are to be given a majority in Northern Ireland, how can hon. Members be other than worried about giving to such a Parliament executive and autocratic powers such as it never had before? Does what has been suggested mean that the lower House in Northern Ireland will have the right to determine matters itself or does it mean that matters will be taken to their logical conclusion and go to the Senate and then to the Governor and that the Governor will have the right to veto anything passed by the lower House? If such is the case, we can regard what has been said this afternoon as true in substance. It will mean that Northern Ireland will never have a chance of reversing the position set out in the Bill. We suggest that "people" is a more apt, more elastic and much better word than "Parliament" at present.

Sir Ronald Ross: I have listened with astonishment to some of the speeches today. It is a most curious thing—probably it could happen in no other country—that people should be speaking with the object of throwing out a community of people, established by this Parliament, who are among the most zealous friends of Great Britain with or without a Socialist Government. They are threatened with being thrown out of the United Kingdom. Ireland was split in deference to the agitation——

Mr. Mathers: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. We are now being treated to an argument about throwing the people of Northern Ireland out of the British Commonwealth. I suggest that the Amendment has nothing whatever to do with that.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am just waiting to hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

Sir R. Ross: I am entirely in your hands, Mr. Bowles. I have listened to the arguments addressed to the Committee by the two hon. Members for Oldham. I thought I was following not the same point of view but the same type of argument.

Mr. Hale: I am so sorry if I have not made myself clear. The Amendment provides that this matter should be left to the decision of the people of Northern Ireland. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has so little confidence in the people of Northern Ireland that he thinks something would happen which he would not like?

Sir R. Ross: I have complete confidence in the people of Northern Ireland. They are represented by their Parliament, and the sooner hon. Members opposite get that into their heads the better.—[Interruption.]—Hon. Members who have never been to Ireland at all so far as I know are roaring with laughter and apparently consider this very funny, but they had better accept the fact that the Parliament of Northern Ireland represents the people of Northern Ireland and probably represents them better than this Parliament represents the people of the United Kingdom. I will give the Committee an instance. We suffer the occasional disadvantage of having elections in which there are more candidates than two and then we get people elected on a minority vote. In the recent elections in Northern Ireland there was only one instance where there were more than two candidates. Normally there is a candidate who is in favour of preserving the association with Great Britain in the United Kingdom and a candidate who is in favour of joining what is now the Irish Republic.

9.0 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: Very paradoxical.

Sir R. Ross: There was only one exception to that, and that was a member of the party of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) who sacrificed his deposit, and so there was in every constituency but one a straight fight. [Interruption.] I know the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) was the victim of a straight fight.

Mr. Haworth: What about the 24 divisions not contested?

Sir R. Ross: They were not contested because it was quite hopeless to contest them; most were Unionists, and everybody knew that a Unionist candidate would be re-elected.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles. Two speeches have been made from the other side of the Committee of a most controversial character. There was not a single interruption from this side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Not a single interruption. May I call your attention, Mr. Bowles, to the fact that during the whole of my hon. Friend's speech there have been constant interruptions, and may I also respectfully call your attention to the fact that Oppositions in the long run do not allow themselves to be interrupted in this way without retaliation.

Sir R. Ross: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Bowles. I have no objection to these interruptions because they are so silly and, generally, they can be dealt with quite easily. However, I think it rather gives away the case of those who oppose our policy in that they think that noise is argument, and that by interrupting me they will silence me. They will do nothing of the sort. As I was saying, the election was a straight fight in Northern Ireland. If one wants an appeal to the people and a plebiscite, it would be more appropriate in a place where the fight was not so completely uncomplicated as the last election was there. I see that the name of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) is down to this Amendment. A plebiscite in Bedford, where the hon. Member was elected by a minority of those who voted, would be interesting.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: It will not be a minority next time.

Sir R. Ross: No, it will not; we know what will happen next time.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: The hon. Member's party has booted out their prospective candidate at Bedford.

Sir R. Ross: I see I have got under the skin of the hon. Member, and I hate to wound his feelings because he has represented the cause of Eire in Bedford, the home of John Bunyan, so faithfully throughout this Parliament. A plebiscite in Bedford would be interesting.
As far as those who are responsible for the Government of Eire are concerned, they certainly hurled themselves into the conflict. They know just as much about Northern Ireland as anybody else, and a good deal more than the hon. Member


for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), and they evidently thought it was an election in which they should take part. So they collected money at the doors of every ecclesiastical building in the South of Ireland. They gave us the benefit of sending speakers over the Border. Their wireless at Athlone, which does not hesitate to hurl itself into the heart of politics, thundered away every evening. As a result of all that, they had the most crushing defeat possible. They evidently believed that the Parliament of Northern Ireland represented Northern Ireland, and they were endeavouring at that stage to persuade the electors that their view was the correct one.

Dr. Morgan: But was not that election won with open ballot boxes?

Sir R. Ross: I did not hear that interruption; I should like it repeated louder.

Dr. Morgan: I shall tell the hon. Member if he will let me. I went thoroughly into the County Down election and it was proved beyond any challenge that open ballot boxes arrived at the polling booths after the count.

Sir R. Ross: That was not so. In any case, according to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) nothing much matters because the people who think as he does will multiply in such enormous numbers that we shall soon be outvoted. I notice that the same confusion surrounds the arguments from the other side from time to time. We all object to these constant insinuations of corruption, that it is a venal Parliament, made by people who generally know nothing about it, or by people who wish to get dissensions there, like the hon. Member for Hornchurch who was the only person to raise the religious controversy in the Debate this evening. The Northern Ireland Labour Party were so impressed by the assistance of the hon. Member for Hornchurch to their cause that they passed a resolution that he was not to come to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bing: That is quite true. Let me add also that they prohibited my right hon. Friend the Lord President as well.

Sir R. Ross: That may be, but I think that the Lord President would be a much more likely person to get their leave than

the hon. Member for Hornchurch. However, the hon. Gentleman performed his function, wrecked the Northern Ireland Labour Party and reduced them to such a state of impotence that they have now seen the light and have come across to the views embodied in the Bill. The official Northern Ireland Labour Party, the one which has some connection with the Labour Party here, is now, I think, fully in support of the Bill. It certainly is not in support of the Amendment which is now before the Committee.
The Northern Ireland Labour Party are not suggesting that the Parliament of Northern Ireland does not represent the people of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland who elect their Parliament are overwhelmingly working class, and the suggestions that they would tolerate corruption, venal behaviour and the various other suggestions that have been made are an insult to the working people of Northern Ireland. It is no wonder that the Labour Members there were all defeated at the election. The sooner people treat this question in a sensible way and cease to listen to the propaganda from the ex-neutral territory of what is now the Irish Republic——

Mr. J. Beattie: The Republic of Ireland.

Sir R. Ross: The Irish Republic; people should cease to listen to these pretensions of ruling us who are part of the United Kingdom. After all, we have been there since the time when Europeans of white stock went to America; we have been there for a very long time. I do not know whether it is suggested that we should be removed; certainly, we should resist that too. We are attached to the United Kingdom and to this country, and by "this country" I mean Great Britain. So far as I know there has never been for many hundreds of years a united Ireland governed by Parliament from Dublin except under the British flag. The British flag has now gone from Dublin.
If there was anything which would make the Parliament of Northern Ireland, which represents the people of Northern Ireland, more determined than ever not to become subject to the Parliament of Dublin, it would be the action of the Government of Eire during the last war and subsequently, and their pretensions


to their Government being the rightful authority to govern Northern Ireland as well as Eire. There were protests at the arrival of American troops; their head of the State sympathised with the Nazis, who were represented there, on the death of Hitler. These things have made our determination to remain united with Great Britain more marked than ever.
There are one or two things which the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), who moved the Amendment, said with which I do not agree. One remark was about the financial unity of Ireland. The financial business and connections of Northern Ireland are far more with Great Britain than with what is Eire.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the Amendment. This is a question of consultation either with the Northern Ireland Parliament or with the Northern Ireland people.

Sir R. Ross: I was in a little difficulty, Mr. Bowles. I had thought that allusions to financial relations being entirely inside Ireland were a little outside the scope of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Oldham was moving, but that was what he said. I thought that, as he had said that, it would be proper and in Order for me to answer that point as shortly as I could and merely to point out that our financial connections are much closer with Great Britain; that there is a tariff barrier between us in Northern Ireland and Eire to destroy trade, but that if we had a tariff barrier between us and Great Britain there would be great unemployment.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I did not hear the hon. Member for Oldham say anything of the kind in his last speech on the Amendment. He may have said it in an earlier speech or an earlier part of the Debate. In any event, the hon. Gentleman is now going too far.

Sir R. Ross: I bow to your Ruling and in any case I have said most of the things I wanted to say.
Another point the hon. Member made was that the spiritual aspirations of the Socialist Party involved our joining with Eire and, apparently, being excluded from the United Kingdom. If those are

the spiritual aspirations of the Socialist Party, it is not going to get them very far with the working men of the North of Ireland. The curious thing about the whole Debate is that, although this House has granted freely rights far in excess of the fundamental and small basic rights of deciding which community we wish to live in to what is now the Irish Republic and was then the Irish Free State and, later, Eire, they were granted in the height of hostilities. Even the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) urged that we should have use of their ports. These rights were freely granted to Eire——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must confine himself now to the Amendment.

Sir R. Ross: It is difficult when these suggestions have been thrown out by the proposer, that one should be very considerably gagged in trying to answer them——

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member should not make remarks of that kind. I am trying to be completely fair in the conduct of this Debate. I said that I did not hear the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) say what the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) said the hon. Member for Oldham said. If I had heard him saying those things I would have asked him not to do so.

Earl Winterton: On that point, Sir, it is a long established Rule of this House that if a previous occupant of the Chair has allowed an hon. Member to say something, the following occupant of the Chair permits it to be answered. You were not in the Chair and because the Chairman did not rule it out of Order should not my hon. Friend be allowed to answer?

The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lord has not been in the Chamber for very long, but I have been in the Chair for the whole Debate.

Earl Winterton: You yourself said you were not in the Chair——

The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lord does not listen. I said that I did not hear the hon. Member for Oldham say what the hon. Member for Londonderry said that he said.

Sir R. Ross: I believe that the basis of all our Debates is that we should obey the Chair and I do not pursue the matter further. I shall merely say that the Parliament of Northern Ireland represents the people of Northern Ireland. The same proportion of Members are elected to this House under the rules which apply to us all and even excluding the university Member, they exceed those who wish to join Eire by about three to one and the proportion is about the same in the Northern Ireland Parliament. It is fundamental justice that that Parliament should be allowed to decide on the fate of the people who elect it.
As to the constitutional points raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, the Constitution of Northern Ireland has not been altered in that respect or, as far as I know, in any other respect, by the Parliament of Northern Ireland. If there is a complication as regards assent and so forth, it was put in the Constitution and settled by this House and it is a Constitution which was settled without any suggestion from us, from the North. We have worked it effectively and we started working it as soon as we were given it, which is more than could be said for those in the South, who ignored it altogether.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Hale: As the hon. Member has studied the constitutional position he will be familiar with the fact that Sir Arthur Quekett went to Northern Ireland from this House as an expert at the time the Constitution was evolved and that recently, just before his death, he published an authoritative work on the subject. Does he know, and will he bear in mind, that the Speaker of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland has ruled that matters criticising affairs which take place or are discussed in this House are not competent to be discussed by the Northern Ireland House of Commons at all and that, therefore, there can be no discussion on these points under present procedure?

Sir R. Ross: That is quite right; I see no objection to it. The Constitution was settled by this House; we have carried it out properly and we are exercising our authority to the best of our ability in a democratic way. We are a very much more democratic community in every respect——

The Deputy-Chairman: rose—

Sir R. Ross: I see your eye is upon me, Mr. Bowles, and I shall not go into the respects. We are a very much more democratic community than that community which now is forming the Irish Republic. This Amendment is ill-conceived and I trust the Government will not consider it.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) spoke of a straight fight in Ulster at the recent elections and I was reminded of the Scriptures which refer to the street in Jerusalem which is called "straight."

Mr. Ede: It is in Damascus.

Mr. Gallacher: Yes, that is right. It is in Damascus. He had to go to Damascus to a street which is called "straight," but the street which is called "straight," like the straight fights in Ulster, is as crooked as a corkscrew.
When the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition was speaking I asked him if this paragraph did not make a fundamental change in the existing situation and he argued, as it was argued on Second Reading, that it made no change in the situation. I suggest it makes a very serious change and one that should be considered by every hon. Member on this side of the House. I think it was the Home Secretary who said that we were not prepared to see violence making a change in the situation in Ireland, but where did the violence originate and how does it come about that the Irish have partition? It was because of the violence organised by Carson and the Tories. That is where it started.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is also going too wide.

Mr. Gallacher: I happened to work in Belfast when the Carson campaign was going on and I want to draw attention to this. It is something to which I want to refer in connection with the Debates taking place in this House. Carson and his friend Lord Craigaven had a slogan—"No surrender"; and the Imperialists in Northern Ireland, the Tories in Northern Ireland, have the same contempt for the minority—and for the majority of the Irish people—as the Imperialists have for the people elsewhere. We hear the Imperialists refer to the


Chinese as "Chinks"; we hear the Americans refer to the Negros as "niggers." It is a term of contempt. The Tory Imperialists of Northern Ireland continually refer in contemptuous manner to the majority of the Irish people as "Papes."

Mr. Odey: Does not the hon. Member recollect that we on these benches have been referred to as vermin?

Mr. Gallacher: So far as the Front Bench on this side of the House are concerned, there are certain things which they do with which I disagree and there are certain things with which I agree; and I had a considerable measure of agreement with the Minister of Health when he made that speech. But I remember—and it is important that I should mention this—that I saw in the shop windows when I was over there postcards and doggerel of all kinds. I remember some particular lines:
Carson had a yellow cat,
That sat upon a fender,
And every time it saw a Pape"—
not a Catholic—
It yelled out, 'No Surrender.'
I did not think at that time that there would ever be an occasion——

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to interrupt again on a point of Order, but in view of the fact that the speech of my hon. Friend was truncated—I make no criticism of that—because, Mr. Bowles, you said he could not go at such length into past history, may I ask if it will be in Order for subsequent speakers—I should be glad to do so at length for an hour, if necessary—to tell about the Irish Movement and the defence of Ulster in 1911, in view of what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is now saying?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have had to pull the hon. Member up twice, and I am listening carefuly to what he says.

Mr. Warbey: Further to that point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member opposite to play games in this Committee with paper?

Mr. Gallacher: This question about the people and the Government of Northern Ireland is fundamental. I consider it very

necessary to make these preliminary remarks, because the situation at present is that the power is in the hands of the Government of this country to meet and to come to an agreement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and, having come to an agreement with the Republic of Ireland, to take measures to test, by whatever means they desire, the feeling of the people of Northern Ireland about that agreement. The responsibility is with this Government. That is the important thing to understand about the present situation. What will be the situation under this Clause? The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), Carson's "yellow cat," said on Second Reading:
If the people of Northern Ireland under a Tory or Socialist Government"—
that reference to a Socialist Government is only eyewash—
continue to say, 'No surrender,' then it is our duty in this House to support them in the name of British democracy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1917–8.]
The Leader of the House in the same Debate said:
I thought a good and sincere speech was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), who has long experience as a result of residence in Ireland and, generally speaking, I agreed with the line he took on the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1965.]
What does this mean? It means that the Labour Government abdicate their responsibility to handle and decide upon this matter, and hand over the power to a Tory junta in the North of Ireland to decide the fate and future of Ireland and then we are told—Labour Members of Parliament are told—that it will be their duty to support the Tory junta in the North of Ireland against the people of the South of Ireland.

Mr. John E. Haire: Will the hon. Member permit me? Does he say that the Labour Party in Northern Ireland, as distinct from the British Labour Party, does not support this Clause in the Bill and is not behind us in this step?

Mr. Gallacher: The Labour Party in Northern Ireland has been through so many convolutions I do not believe it is capable of supporting anything. But that is not the point. It is for the Labour Party in this Committee, the Labour Members of this Committee, to see that


the Labour Government keep their responsibility to hold on to power so that they can test the feeling of the people of Northern Ireland, if the Government can come to an agreement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. What right has this junta in the North of Ireland to interfere?
Do Labour Members here say that the Government should retain power so that they can take the feelings of the people of Ireland on this question whenever it is possible to come to an agreement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, or are the Labour Members prepared to support the Tory junta in Northern Ireland against the people in the rest of Ireland in their fight for a united Ireland. "Ireland one and indivisible" has always been the desire of the Irish people.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I am anxious to keep close to the terms of the Amendment, and therefore I shall be exceedingly brief. I think that this subsection does in fact give an assurance, which already exists, that the British Government will not overrule that section of the people of Northern Ireland who do not wish to join the Republic of Ireland but who wish to remain in the United Kingdom. I support the Amendment because I think the better form of that assurance is to give the assurance that the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland will be considered rather than that the Government will be consulted.
I do not believe that this subsection adds very much. I think that it would have been better if it had not been in the Bill. It is provocative, and the assurance has already been given by the Prime Minister. Once it is in, it would be equally provocative to delete it altogether, and therefore I did not vote on the issue to delete it. I think that if we are to have an assurance, it ought to be an assurance to the people of Northern Ireland and to all of them.
I am not so sure that the Government of Northern Ireland are as representative as some people have said. An hon. Member made a great claim that the Northern Ireland Parliament was more representative than this country's Parliament. I ask why, if they are so anxious to be fully representative and have minorities properly represented, did Northern

Ireland do away with proportional representation [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but Southern Ireland has not done that. There may be many objections to proportional representation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] May I finish what I am saying, and I will give way. There may be objections to it as a method of electing Parliament, but one thing is certain—and I have never heard it denied by anyone who knows anything about it—that proportional representation does provide the fairest system of representation of minorities.

Mr. Gage: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that Mr. de Valera said, when he thought that he was losing the election, that proportional representation was one of the worst methods of election? Is that the reason why the Northern Ireland Government did away with proportional representation?

The Deputy-Chairman: Considering that Northern Ireland Parliament has not proportional representation, I do not think that this is very relevant.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Roberts: But if they had it originally, if it was part of the original constitution of Northern Ireland established by Act of Parliament of this House, surely I am entitled to bring that in as evidence showing that the Parliament of Northern Ireland, having abolished proportional representation, is no longer as representative as it was intended to be by this House of Commons which established the Parliament?

The Deputy-Chairman: That would be in Order.

Mr. Gage: In that case, I am sure my interruption will be allowed. I intended to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that, when there was proportional representation in Northern Ireland the same number of Unionist Members were elected as during the last election, when there was not proportional representation.

Mr. Roberts: I am aware of that fact, but my question has not yet been answered. Why did they do away with proportional representation, and subsequently begin to alter the constituencies? That was the process that was gone through. The first step was to get rid of the proportional representation system,


and the next step was what I believe is well known in Ireland as gerrymandering. If these accusations have been made, whether or not they are well-founded, and in view of the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and calling in aid all the arguments that we cannot divest ourselves in this Parliament of the ultimate responsibility for Northern Ireland—we cannot turn over that responsibility to the Parliament of Northern Ireland—I do submit to the Home Secretary that this is a better and more democratic expression of the guarantee which I wish to see given to the people of Northern Ireland, that they will not be handed over to a republic and that their wishes will be consulted.
There are other things about the democratic system of Ireland which it would be out of Order for me to discuss very far. I hope, however, that I shall be allowed to say that two years ago there was passed through this House the Northern Ireland (Special Powers) Act, which arms the Northern Ireland Government with all kinds of powers which might be used very undemocratically, and which could be used to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of the Press.

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ede indicated dissent.

Mr. Roberts: The Home Secretary shakes his head.

Mr. Ede: Yes, because that was not in the Act which I introduced. Attention was drawn to the fact that the Northern Ireland Parliament had previously been given powers which enabled that kind of thing to be done, but it was not in the Act passed two years ago.

Mr. Roberts: Whether or not it was in the Act passed two years ago the powers exist, and they were not limited by that Act. The Northern Ireland Government have powers which could be used to influence elections and to create a most undemocratic situation. That is an additional reason why I support the view that the undertaking should be to consider the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and not of their Government. There is more than one way of consulting the people of Northern Ireland. Presumably, their representatives in this House represent the opinion of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stokes: No.

Mr. Roberts: Well, presumably they do if they are properly elected. I am not at all sure that their advice to this Parliament is not better than the opinion which may be expressed in the North of Ireland Parliament. There are also other methods. For instance, there can be a plebiscite.
For these reasons I support the Amendment. I say again, that I think it is unfortunate that this paragraph appears; but if it is going to appear, and if this matter may, as it probably will, go to some international organisation, I believe that our sound basis is to pay attention to the wishes of the people in this part of Ireland, and to say, while not laying down exactly how those wishes are to be expressed and through whom they are to be expressed, that this Parliament gives an undertaking that those wishes will be respected.

Mr. Ede: We have had a discursive Debate on this Amendment, the point of which seems to me to be very narrow indeed. It is a question whether the Parliament of Northern Ireland, or some other form of representative opinion, shall be regarded as the means by which the consent of Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom shall be ascertained. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) talked about the Socialist way of ascertaining opinion. As far as I know, the social democratic way of ascertaining opinion is through a representative Parliament. That is the doctrine the Government have included in the Bill—a representative Parliament.
The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) suggested that in some other way—[Interruption.] I have tried not to interrupt Members, except where they have gone wrong in quoting Holy Scripture. We have had a very long Debate, and I am doing my best to answer the Amendment. I hope that I may be allowed to do so, because I do not desire unnecessarily to prolong the Debate. The hon. Member suggested that the representation in this House is a better guide to the opinion of Northern Ireland than the views of the Northern Ireland Government. The curious thing is that during the 26 or so years that that Parliament has been in existence, the representation in this House and in the Northern Ireland House has been almost precisely the same. I think that at the moment the proportion in this House in


favour of maintaining the union with Great Britain is greater than it is in the Northern Ireland Parliament, even after the recent General Election.
No method is suggested in the Amendment by which the views of the people of Northern Ireland, apart from their Parliament, can be ascertained. We as a Parliamentary democracy have always said that for better or for worse this country must be understood to be represented by the Government which has been returned at the last General Election, and we expect that to be respected in international affairs. Where there is a democratic form of election abroad, we accept the Government a democracy has placed in power through its system of representation. I suggest that it would be very wrong to include words in this Bill which would give no clear indication of the way in which the consent of Northern Ireland was to be given. Here is a quite precise method, but now it is suggested that against the wishes of the Northern Ireland people the Government of Northern Ireland might either abolish elections altogether, have a redistribution of seats, or alter the franchise.
I would remind the Committee that, after all, the King still has power in Northern Ireland to dissolve Parliament, and an attempted coup of that kind is appropriately provided for in the Constitution. I cannot imagine, with the responsibility I have as Home Secretary, and my successors will have, for advising the Governor-General about the course he should take in certain cases, that if any such coup were attempted appropriate measures would not be taken to circumvent it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) made a speech in which he went over a great many of the Second Reading points, and those which had been dealt with on the previous Amendment. I do not intend to go beyond the one narrow point with which this Amendment is concerned. We desire the people of Northern Ireland to understand that except with their consent they will not be sent out of the United Kingdom or the British Commonwealth of Nations. We do not know any other way of ascertaining what their views are than through the Parliament which they themselves elect——

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Which only some of them elect.

Mr. Ede: I lived for many years in a constituency which was regarded as so hopeless by the Liberal Party that I never had a chance of exercising the franchise in my early days.
It is through the Parliament which they elect that we shall ascertain whether their consent is given. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham also questioned the way in which this would be done in the Northern Ireland Parliament. It is true that they are prevented from legislating on matters that are not directly devolved upon them, but they are not prevented from discussing such a proposition as this if they desire to do so and a resolution passed by both Houses of the Northern Ireland Parliament would be as good an indication of what they desire as the resolution which was passed last week in this House about the North Atlantic Pact, and which, I understand, will be discussed in another place this week, and which gives an indication of what the people of this country, through their representative institutions, feel about that important matter. I suggest there is no alternative, if we desire to ascertain the views of the people of Northern Ireland, than to take the view expressed by their representative institution—the Parliament which this House has agreed to accept.

Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I want in a few words to explain the reasons why we on these benches are against the Amendment. I listened with great care to the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), and I understood him to start from the point that he did not want the people of Northern Ireland to be driven out of the United Kingdom against their will, or to join a neighbouring part of Ireland against their will. Starting from that point we have to consider how that will is to be expressed. That is the narrow point of the Amendment. We are agreed that it is to be a matter of consent and that we desire that any change should come about only by the procedure of consent.
I would say to the hon. Member for Oldham—the width and depth of whose reflection I do not underestimate—that it is most dangerous, when a Parliament does not contain a majority of people accepting one's own views, to attack the


institution of Parliament. It has been the first step in the downfall of parliamentary government in more countries than one would like to think about.

Mr. Bing: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point made by the Chief Whip in Northern Ireland, which is on record, that it would be desirable to alter the franchise if there was any danger of there being a Nationalist majority?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman, to whom we have listened making long speeches or interruptions, has given example after example of taking isolated facts out of their context but, with a reluctance which I totally fail to understand, has not produced any date in relation to any matter to which he referred. I am not going to be diverted from a serious attempt to answer a constitutional point by inconsiderate and irrelevant nonsensities of that kind. I was attempting to deal with the point raised.

Mr. Bing: Mr. Bing
rose——

9.45 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself for ten minutes so that I can deal with the point which he has raised and which I want to deal with seriously. I shall not be more than ten minutes, and then the destiny of the hon. Member for Hornchurch is in other hands than mine.
I have mentioned the first danger of an attack on a Parliament. I should require a great deal more evidence than has even been hinted at—and I think I have heard practically every speech on Second Reading except a very few—before I should even contemplate the attack which the hon. Gentleman suggests, because he realises that to make this change would be flouting not only the Parliament but the electorate of Northern Ireland. We have no reason, and we have not heard anything, which would make us content to take that course.
I come to the next point which the hon. Gentleman made, and that was his difficulty as to how this would work. With regard to that, the practical course which the Home Secretary has suggested is the one I should take. A resolution on an important and vital matter is not only the procedure used by this House

but if he will cast his memory back he will agree that it was the procedure used by the Dail at the time of the Irish Treaty. That was long before there was any legislation. There was a resolution approving in general terms of the course to be taken and so there are Irish precedents as well as precedents here.
With regard to the method of approach, I would remind the hon. Member that when we are dealing with a legislature subject to limitations or reserved powers, as there is in the Northern Ireland legislature, there is a hold on that legislature because of the reserved powers, and because of the over-riding authority of the supreme legislature which, in this case, is ourselves. Therefore, we have a further safeguard. On the general point, as I said on Second Reading, I was impressed, not by figures——

Mr. Hale: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting a very effective argument very fairly. I do not quarrel with anything he has said up to now, but I should like him to explain a little further what he means about handling a Parliament with reserved powers. The Home Secretary has suggested that if they did not come to the decision that he particularly approved of in those special circumstances as being fair, and if he came to the conclusion that the decision was contrary to the wishes of the Irish people, he would consider his constitutional position in that connection. The suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that he would do that, if he came to the conclusion that the Northern Ireland Parliament had arrived at its decision without adequate consultation or without considering in full all the factors involved.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I was not dealing with their arriving at the conclusion but at the likelihood of their doing so, having arrived at the conclusion by a vote on a resolution. I was considering the likelihood of their preparing the ground wrongly, so to speak. That is much more difficult when a Parliament has reserved powers, because one can, by the exercise of those powers, so limit the legislative power on important subjects as to make it very difficult for them. I do not want to go into examples. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate and will know that they have arisen. I


do not want to rely, and I do not think any of us does, upon selected statistics on one point, taken out of their context and put alone. I want hon. Members in all parts of the House to put a plain question to themselves.
After they have listened to everything that has been said for two days, the first question is: Do they agree broadly with the way the matter was put by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), as showing the underlying feeling? The second point is: If that is the underlying feeling, what is the complaint about a Parliament which, after it changed from proportional representation to our own system of voting, secured exactly the same results on this issue? I do not think that anyone, looking at the matter objectively and realistically, can come to any other conclusion on those points than that, at the moment, there is this majority of people in favour of this view, that it finds its expression in Parliament and that, as parliamentary democrats, we ought to stand by that method of expressing opinion and make that the criterion of any change.

Mr. Paget: I do not agree with those who wish to see partition end. I believe that partition is a thoroughly good thing. I want to make that quite clear in advance. The race and religion of the people in Northern Ireland fit in more appropriately with Scotland and England than with Southern Ireland. I voted for the Second Reading of this Bill and for the Government on the Amendments so far, and I hope that the Government will not make me vote against them on this Amendment.
I want to take up with the Attorney-General something which he said which I believe is a grave constitutional fallacy, the statement that this Parliament cannot bind its successors. I believe that to be quite untrue. The whole genius of our constitutional system is that we have grafted the customs of the constitution upon the laws of the constitution, and one of the customs of the constitution which have been grafted upon the law is that each Government and each Parliament considers itself bound by the Treaties of its predecessors. If we pass this Act, which is in the nature of a treaty, any future Parliament will consider itself bound by the undertaking which we make in this Clause. That undertaking is in

quite specific terms, that we will maintain the separation of Ulster from the South unless the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland is secured.
It should be remembered that the Parliament of Northern Ireland has control over the franchise. It has legal control to alter the franchise. As the Home Secretary observed, that may be controlled at least in theory by the Governor-General, but far more important than that is that the Parliament of Northern Ireland has physical control over the franchise. It controls the policemen who say who can go into a booth and who cannot, and it controls the officials who count the votes. It has the physical control of rigging any election it chooses. It has had no occasion to do so because it has represented a very real majority, but if that situation should change and if the Unionists were no longer in the majority, that Parliament would still be a Unionist Parliament because, majority or no majority, they are not going to part with it. In those circumstances we should be committed as to the future of that Parliament. That is quite wrong.
I know no precedent for the word "Parliament" being used in an Act of this sort. In any other Acts I have found the words have never been "with the consent" either of "the people of the country" or "of the Parliament," but "with the consent of the country." I should like to see, "with the consent of Northern Ireland." That does not fetter us in the future as to the form in which we might consider it appropriate to take that consent. As the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) said, we might come to the conclusion that the election of hon. Members of this Parliament, where we control the franchise, was more representative than elections to the Stormont Parliament. We might find it necessary in certain circumstances to take other means of asserting what was the real desire in Northern Ireland. Why commit ourselves gratuitously in advance—if this Act is a guarantee and in the nature of a Treaty, we do commit ourselves in advance and unnecessarily—to a particular expression of opinion which may be profoundly embarrassing in the future?
As I have said, I only hope that partition will come to an end if and when the South of Ireland are prepared to unite


again with us. Nevertheless, I do not want to see in an Act of Parliament commitments as to a distant future which are quite unnecessary and may be profoundly embarrassing at some future date.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I hope I shall get one speech made upon constitutional matters before there is a Closure. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in some parts of his speech made a quite remarkable addition to our Debate this evening. I have listened to a good many Irish Debates in my time, and I am among those who spoke and voted in the proceedings on the 1920 Act. As far as the Parliament of the North of Ireland is concerned, it would be almost inconceivable that a Socialist Member should get up and say, as I understood the hon. and learned Member to say, that he rather hoped partition would go on—perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Northampton might be allowed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) to listen for a minute, since the hon. Member for Hornchurch took so much part in our conversations this evening that one wondered sometimes if anyone else would be allowed to speak.
As I was saying, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton at one time seemed to say that he did not wish partition to go on, and then later that he hoped that fusion would never come to pass until the people in the South of Ireland came back within the British Dominions. Certainly I sympathise with him sincerely in that respect, and I believe that everyone on this side of the Committee would do so, but I am not sure whether any practical purpose would be achieved by following that position.
As far as this Parliament is concerned, I congratulate the Home Secretary on the speech he has just made. Some of us had extreme doubts in the 1920's as to what would happen to a Parliament in the North of Ireland in the event of there being a Socialist Government in power. May I say, therefore, that I sincerely respect what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He has done a great deal to remove doubts from the minds of many hundreds of thousands of Conservatives, and also of members of other parties. There is a strong feeling, especially

among the older sections of the community, that in no circumstances should any pressure be put on the North of Ireland. We think that the North of Ireland Parliament over a prolonged period has not only shown that it is determined to stay within the Union, but has also shown itself to be a constitutional authority in the North of Ireland.
In some ways the North of Ireland Parliament is more constitutional than we are, because I do not think it would ever do such a shameful thing as to move the Closure on a constitutional Bill of this kind. That is a completely unthinkable thing for any real democrats to do. Only the type of person now ruling the Socialist Party would ever dream of putting on the Closure on a Bill, such as that we are discussing today, when there has been hardly any discussion at all.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman appears to be making a reflection upon the Chair. I presume that he is not intending to do that.

Mr. Williams: No, Sir. Instead of saying "putting on the Closure" I think I should have used the word "move," but both expressions are really identical. Once the Closure has been moved, any subject under discussion is entirely ruled out. I hope that you will accept my sincere apologies, Major Milner. I have no wish to make that imputation upon the Chair. I need say nothing more about that, because I can see that the Leader of the House accepts quite truly what I have said about these monstrous things.
As we are dealing with the Parliament of Northern Ireland it is only right that I should make this one further point. The other day it was laid down perfectly clearly that the people of Northern Ireland represent the whole of the trade union movement in Northern Ireland. That was done in a speech of exceptional clarity, not by an Ulsterman, by a member of the Tory Party or by a Government speaker who had to follow his brief for the day, but by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) from his own knowledge. I can, if necessary, quote his remarks, but I will not do so as I have no desire to take up any great time of the Committee. [Interruption.] If I wished to take up the time of the Com-


mittee that would not be very difficult, especially on a Bill such as this; but my speech is much shorter than most of those which have been made today, and it would have been ended by now except for one or two interruptions.
I would remind the Committee of what I wanted to say. If ever the Ulster Parliament wants any recognition that it is fair, democratic and essentially based upon the workers of the country, both in the towns and in the country, it had better refer to HANSARD and the speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe. That speech did not, however, gain the hon. Member the good will of his Front Bench, whom he was supporting, or of some of the extremists in the party who are doing what I have not done today; that is, going back into the affairs of 20, 30 and even 300 years ago.
Those are the reasons why I say the Amendment to insert "people" should not be accepted. Parliament is the chosen institution, and is very highly credited. It is better to use the term "Parliament" rather than to insert something vague, the intention of which, as the Amendment clearly shows, is to try to throw things into a state of complete muddle and to restore disorder when there is at present a hope and a chance that we can work with the Irish people.

Mr. John McKay: I have had to wait a long time for an opportunity to speak in this Debate, and I think this will be the first time that I have felt almost compelled to go into the Lobby against the Government. The Amendment upon which we have to speak does not allow one to express his full viewpoint on the situation that has arisen on the Bill. The whole point at issue is limited to the question of "Parliament" or "people." In discussing these particular points various technicalities have been put forward. One of these was a question about what we should do if we were to insert in the Bill "people" instead of "Parliament." The Home Secretary, apparently, is so devoid of ingenuity that if the Committee were to decide to make that change he would not know what to do.
It is something new to me to find that some of the leading politicians of a political party do not know what to do if this Amendment is carried. If we are

happy about the Parliament of Northern Ireland and about the way it is constituted and that it works well we will vote for the Clause as it stands. If, however, we conscientiously believe that the Parliament as constituted is not working satisfactorily from a democratic point of view, we begin to wonder whether we should support the Clause as it stands, or support the Amendment. I have a conscientious objection on the evidence put forward. If we are satisfied with the position we will vote for the Clause as it stands, but of we are dissatisfied we shall vote to change the word from "Parliament" to "people."
The question is, how shall we attempt to get the viewpoint of the people of Northern Ireland on the question of partition and so forth? Some believe in proportional representation, others in the representative system and others in the referendum. As I understand it, the Amendment is an attempt to get a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland and, if that is so, I wish to support the Amendment, because to my mind the whole question of partition rests on an unsound foundation.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I wish to state briefly the reasons why I shall go into the Government Lobby against this Amendment. In the first place, I approach this Amendment with a good deal of sympathy. Unless we can be reasonably sure that the Government of Northern Ireland represents a reasonable expression of the feelings of the Northern Irish people it would be taking upon ourselves a very great responsibility to leave in the hands of such a Parliament the decision as to future union between North and South. Therefore, as I say, I approached the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) with a good deal of sympathy and I listened with very great care to what he said on the matter and, indeed, to what everybody else has said.
I am bound to say that it seemed to me that almost all the reasons he gave for objecting to the word "Parliament" applied equally to the word "people." Every one of the legal difficulties connected with the Act of 1921 seemed to me to arise just as surely and with just as great a force whether we have the word "Parliament" or the word "people." If we are to substitute the


word "people" I do not think we can do that and leave it there; we have to define what we mean by the people. Does it mean all the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, regardless of age or sex? Does it mean all those who would be qualified to vote if the English franchise applied to them? What does it mean? We cannot just put in a vague and general term like "people" in an Act of Parliament and leave it completely undefined when we are giving power to take very important constitutional decisions.
The next point that arises is this. If we do not define what the word "people" means, who is to do the defining? Is it the English Parliament or the Northern Ireland Parliament? Hon. Members may say it is the English Parliament, and if that appeared in the Amendment at least we should know what was intended, but there is no reference in the Amendment now before the House indicating which Parliament shall determine.

Mr. Hale: Perhaps the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting, but I know he does not mean to misinterpret the position. Perhaps he was not present when we were told by the Chairman, in opening the discussion, that we could not discuss such details as that. If this Amendment is carried, as I hope it will be, we shall substitute a definition in the appropriate Clause, and we can discuss that definition in compliance with the Rules of the Chair.

Mr. Brown: That may be, but it would certainly have helped me, and I think others, if we had known what was in the mind of the hon. Member in relation to this matter. As the Amendment stands, it does not determine what constitutes the people nor does it provide whether it shall be the English or the Northern Ireland Parliament who would undertake the work of definition. If it should be the Northern Ireland Parliament, then everything that has been said about the corruption, the unrepresentative capacity, the undemocratic character of the Northern Ireland Parliament would surely operate just as much in the coming to a decision and the devising of machinery as it is represented it would operate to prevent and frustrate the desire of Northern Ireland people to join the Southern Irish people.

Mr. Gallacher: rose—

Mr. Brown: No, I cannot give way.

Mr. Gallacher: I wanted to help.

Mr. Brown: I must say that whenever any Communists want to help me out of my troubles, I become very suspicious and I prefer to endure the troubles I know rather than fly to others that I know not of.
I think, therefore, that this vague term "people" will not do. That does not absolve us from our responsibilities, but it means that we have to tackle these responsibilities, perhaps in a somewhat different way. I assure hon. Members that I share the view which has been expressed on that side of the House that there is a good deal wrong with the Government of Northern Ireland. I do not like the prospect of special powers being maintained indefinitely in time of peace, as they are being maintained. I have had personal experience of dealing with the Government of Northern Ireland, as representing a British Civil Service trade union, and I know the qualitative and quantitative difference that exists between the Government in Belfast and the Government in London. I was seldom out of difficulty with the Government in London, but I must say that I found them a model of democratic and sweet reasonableness by comparison with what I encountered in Belfast.
However, it seems to me that the root of the question is that the word "Parliament" has got to stay, because it is, at least, a definite, recognisable thing. We may not like it, but we know what it means. If we do not like it—and many of us do not—it seems to me that what we have to do is to use other methods for putting the Government of Northern Ireland on a basis more satisfactory to us. That is within our powers. We passed the original Act for the Northern Ireland Government. We can pass another if we want to, and we can take an opportunity to object to the continuation of special powers, and so on. It is along that line, it seems to me, that any deficiencies in the Government of Northern Ireland ought to be tackled. Meantime, I think that the word "Parliament" must stay, and for the reasons I have given I shall go into the Government Lobby on this matter tonight.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I hope the Committee will be ready to come to a decision on this Amendment which, I think hon. Gentlemen in all quarters will agree, has been pretty fully examined and considered. I wish to add only briefly to what the Secretary of State for the Home Department has said. I would very earnestly advise the Committee that this is an unwise Amendment. It will be impossible to interpret. It is not an Amendment which is worthy of being passed by the Committee into the law of the land. Whilst all these things are very amusing and the Debate is very interesting, I would ask everybody to realise that we are on exceedingly delicate issues here. I hope nobody is bursting to dismember this United Kingdom. Things may have to happen, but I hope that anybody responsible to the electorate of this island is keeping the interests of this island very clearly in mind in all these matters; otherwise the electorate will have its say in due course.
I said on Second Reading that if in the future the Republic of Ireland in the 26 counties and the Parliament of Northern Ireland should freely come to an agreement, it would receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government, but do let us realise that there are very grave issues at stake, and that it is profoundly important that, if and when that consideration is given, it should be given carefully, with a power to discuss detail, with a power to discuss specific matters. I would submit to the Committee that that can be done adequately only if it is done through Parliamentary and Governmental channels. It cannot be done in these other ways.
It is all very well to move an Amendment to substitute the "people" for "Parliament," but somebody has to operate the Bill when it is an Act, somebody has to know what it means. I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was a bit nearer the point when he suggested that the words "Northern Ireland" should be inserted instead of "people," but I do not know that that would make the Bill much better, because the Statute of Westminster, which is a pretty good precedent, provides in Section 4:
No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a

Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
There is no doubt what is meant by that. There is no doubt about what is meant by the word "Dominion" in that Section. There is no doubt what is meant as to the competent body to express an opinion on that Dominion. Undoubtedly the competent body must be the Parliament and Government of that Dominion.
If my hon. Friend's suggestion were adopted, it would bring us back to what is in the Bill, and, on the whole, I think that it is better to be specific about it. If the word "people" remains, which I submit with great respect to my hon. Friend who moved it, is an absurdity in itself, we have to consider, either now or some day, what does it mean? I cannot see that it means anything other than a plebiscite or referendum.

Mr. Gallacher: That was the term the Prime Minister used.

Mr. Morrison: I cannot conceive that it means anything but plebiscite or referendum. I am not quite sure why Northern Ireland should be picked upon in this matter. There have been no vigorous complaints, and we ourselves have been exceedingly restrained. There was not a Parliamentary election fought upon this issue in Southern Ireland; there was not a plebiscite, and yet, out of the blue, comes this decision to declare that part of Ireland a Republic. There have been no great democratic protests about it; no allegation that the will of the people has been evaded and set aside; no talk about gerrymandering the will of the people. I do not talk in that way myself. I have never heard that any one has commented in that spirit about Southern Ireland.
I think that we all have a duty to be as fair-minded as we can about the various parts of His Majesty's Dominions, and certainly in relation to the Republic of Ireland. If this means a plebiscite or referendum, do let hon. Members see how it is going to work. This is not a simple issue that can be put in one question to the people, and which can be answered by "yes" or "no.". Is the question to be, "Would you like a united Ireland?—yes or no?" That is a simple issue but it is also a very complex one,


because some other questions are involved. Is the United Ireland to be in the United Kingdom? It may be in the United Kingdom. Is it to be in the Commonwealth? Is it to be a federal Ireland with a separate Government of Northern Ireland and another in the South and a Federal Government around it?
Are all these things to be set out in a plebiscite? These are material questions that will have to be settled somehow, and I submit that to try to settle these questions, which in fact we cannot do by plebiscite, we should probably have to reduce them to a simple and misleading question. To try and settle this by plebiscite is—I do not want to be offensive—but a child-like political expedient.

Mr. Hale: I have never mentioned a plebiscite; I have never defended it, and I was told that I could not discuss in my Amendment how a decision should be arrived at.

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry about that. I think that the Committee ought to know what this word "people" means. In view of what happened to my hon. Friend, I shall not dwell upon it. I only say that these issues are involved, and it is better that they should be debated in Parliament, which can pass precise resolutions about them and say what they mean, so that the Government can negotiate and precise agreements are reached in the end. It is far better to do it that way than to try to do it by the use of the word "people" which, I submit, is extremely vague.

I think that on this Irish day I have not said anything that will hurt anybody's feelings. I want to impress on the House that this is an exceedingly serious issue. The future of our country is somewhat involved in it. We do not want to pass an Amendment which, I submit in all sincerity and without any wish to offend, will make the House of Commons look somewhat ridiculous. Let us be careful about this doctrine of referendum. We had some of it in Europe. The party opposite might demand one on a simple issue of what we are going to do with the House of Lords. But it might be a little difficult for them if they go so far as that. Do not let us start. I beg my hon. Friends to realise that if they start this business, they are starting an expedient which in the long run is more useful to reaction than to the progressive forces. For all these reasons, I earnestly appeal to the Committee not to pass an Amendment which in actual form is rather ridiculous and which in its consequences would involve all of us in policies and directions which I believe would be contrary to the true interests of the country.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the argument tonight is irrespective of whether it is a Northern Ireland Parliament decision, or a plebiscite or a referendum. The question is: Shall the power remain here, in the Government here, to decide what is to be done, when and how, or shall the power be handed over to the Northern Ireland Parliament?

Question put, "That 'Parliament' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 312; Noes, 54.

Division No. 141.]
AYES
[10.35 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Blenkinsop, A.
Champion, A. J.


Albu, A. H.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Channon, H.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bottomley, A. G.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Clarke, Col. R. S.


Alpass, J. H.
Bower, N.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cobb, F. A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G.
Cole, T. L.


Attewell, H. C.
Bramall, E. A.
Collindridge, F.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Colman, Miss G. M.


Bacon, Miss A.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)


Balfour, A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Corlett, Dr. J.


Barlow, Sir J.
Brown, George (Belper)
Cove, W. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Crawley, A.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Bruse, Maj. D. W. T.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Burden, T. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.


Berry, H.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Daggar, G.


Binns, J.
Callaghan, James
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Birch, Nigel
Challen, C.
Darling, Sir W. Y.


Blackburn, A. R.
Chamberlain, R. A.
Davidson, Viscountess




Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Johnston, Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)


Deer, G.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Keeling, E. H.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Diamond, J.
Kins, E. M.
Ropner, Col. L.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kinley, J.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Dobbie, W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Royle, C.


Dodds, N. N.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sargood, R.


Donner, P. W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Segal, Dr. S.


Donovan, T.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sharp, Granville


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lindgren, G. S.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Drewe, C.
Linstead, H. N.
Simmons, C. J.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lipson, D. L.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Dye, S.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. G.
Lucas-Tooth, S. H.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lyne, A. W.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McAdam, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McAllister, G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Steele, T.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Follick, M.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Foot, M. M.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)


Forman, J. C.
Maitland, Comdr J. W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Studholme, H. G.


Fox, Sir G.
Manningham-Butler, R. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Symonds, A. L.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Maude, J. C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Middleton, Mrs L.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Gibson, C. W.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Gilzean, A.
Morley, R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Goodrich, H. E.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Grey, C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hn H. (Lewisham, E.)
Titterington, M. F.


Gridley, Sir A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Tolley, L.


Grierson, E.
Mort, D. L.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Moyle, A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Murray, J. D.
Usborne, Henry


Guy, W. H.
Nally, W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Viant, S. P.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nicholson, H. R. (Stratford)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Hannon, W. (Maryhill)
Nicholson, G.
Walker, G. H.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Walker-Smith, D.


Harden, J. R. E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Watkins, T. E.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Noel-Baker, Rt Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Weitzman, D.


Harrison, J.
Odey, G. W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.
Oldfield, W. H.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oliver, G. H.
West, D. G.


Haworth, J.
O'Neill Rt. Hon Sir H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pargiter, G. A.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peart, T. F.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hollis, M. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Holman, P.
Pickthorn, K.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hope, Lord J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Willis, E.


Houghton, A. L. N. D.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Randall, H. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Ranger, J.
Woods, G. S.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Rankin, J.
York, C.


Isaacs, Rt. Hun. G. A.
Raynar, Brig. R.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Janner, B.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Jay, D. P. T.
Reid, T. (Swindon)



Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Robens, A.
Mr. Popplewell and


Jenkins, R. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Mr. George Wallace.







NOES


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Horabin, T. L.
Paget, R. T.


Barton, C.
Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W)
Parker, J.


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Parkin, B. T.


Beswick, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pritt, D. N.


Bing, G. H. C.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Lewis, J. (Balton)
Scollan, T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Logan, D. G.
Skinnard, F. W.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Longden, F.
Smith, Ellis (stoke)


Cunningham, P.
McGhee, H. G.
Stokes, R. R.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGovern, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Timmons, J.


Delargy, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Fairhurst, F.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wyatt, W.


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Yates, V. F.


Gallacher, W.
Mikardo, Ian



George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mulvey, A.
Mr. Leslie Hale and




Mr. Skeffington Lodge.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from "to," to the end of line 8, and to insert "as the Irish Republic."
May I seek your guidance, Major Milner? There are on the Order Paper eleven consequential Amendments. I take it that it would be your wish and that of the whole Committee that these should be taken together.
The purpose of this Amendment is to substitute what seems to me to be a somewhat more appropriate designation for the new State which is coming into being. The words "Republic of Ireland" might imply, and I believe in certain quarters are intended to imply, a State having jurisdiction in the whole of the lovely island of Ireland; and the Home Secretary, on an earlier Amendment, lent considerable support to that view when he referred to these particular words and said they might be misinterpreted by some people as applying to the island of Ireland. It is surely essential that there should be no misunderstanding upon this important point. That there may be more than misunderstanding—that there may be a deliberate intention behind the use of these words—is to my mind strongly fortified by the memorandum which has been distributed to, I think, all hon. Members on behalf of the High Commissioner for Eire in London, forwarding an extract from a speech of Mr. MacBride. From that speech I think it is clear, in the minds of those who are promoting legislation in Dublin, or at any rate in the minds of some of them, that there is the intention to use words which are meant to cover the whole island.
The point therefore arises as to whether in this Measure, and in legislation in this House, words with that possible and intended connotation should be used. If I may test their suitability or otherwise, I would ask the Committee to contemplate the indignation which would be caused if this Committee were also in this Measure to describe the province of Northern Ireland as the Kingdom of Ireland. The protests which would be made would be obvious and, in my view, wholly justifiable. I think that consideration may convey to a certain number of hon. Members the objection there is to the use of these words.
Now, the Prime Minister referred to this matter in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, and I think it is fair and right that his argument should be before the Committee in discussing this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to this Clause, said:
It is laid down that this part of Ireland shall be known officially as the Republic of Ireland. I understand that some hon. Members object to this nomenclature; they hold that it implies that the Republic extends to the whole area of the island. In this Bill we make it clear that this is not so. The fact is that the name 'The Republic of Ireland' is that selected by the Irish Government. It has been embodied in their legislation and when any country adopts a name it is really a matter for that country alone.
At that point the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) interjected the monosyllable, "No.". The Prime Minister replied:
I think it is.
My hon. Friend added:
It affects another country.


The Prime Minister said:
I know, but the hon. Member was given certain names at his baptism, and it would be quite improper for me to call him out of his name. The same thing applies to a country. One cannot, in international relations, habitually refer to a country by some other name than that by which it claims to be known, and it would be quite impossible for us, at all events in a statute, to adopt a different name"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1861–2.]
As I understand it, the Prime Minister is laying down as an automatic and absolute rule that where another State adopts a particular name, there is no choice whatsoever and that this Government and this Committee must always and in all circumstances follow that name. That is quite clearly the principle which the Prime Minister is putting forward.
Surely that is a dangerous and an improper principle. One can test it by giving examples and asking whether, in face of these examples, the right hon. Gentleman would still persist in maintaining that principle. Suppose that, instead of the words "Republic of Ireland," the words were, "The Republic of the British Isles"? Would the right hon. Gentleman still say the Dublin legislature had adopted this name and that therefore this Committee must automatically follow? Or let us apply the doctrine in a wider sphere. Suppose that the Republic of the Argentine were to describe itself as the Republic of the Argentine and the Falklands, would the right hon. Gentleman say we must tacitly accept that? It really is a doctrine that will not stand analysis.
It is no doubt a perfectly good working rule that when another State adopts a name we should endeavour to adopt the use of that name, if there is no real objection; but it is a very different thing to say that where a name is adopted which is admittedly objectionable and resented by other parts of the world, that one is compelled, whatever that name, automatically to adopt it. What the right hon. Gentleman has said is not even true as a matter of practice. I think he said that it is impossible to use a name for a country which is different from the name which it uses itself. The Committee will recall that the Government of the day in this country indicated that the country which knew itself as Iran should be known

as Persia. That was because it raised difficulties, and as a result of representations from the Foreign Office——

Mr. Eden: Not the Foreign Office.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I withdraw that remark in deference to my right hon. Friend—as a result of representations from certain Government Departments about the difficulty in distinguishing between Iran and Iraq. And in fact it would be embarrassing if an ultimatum were sent to the wrong country. It also serves as an example of a case where, as a matter of convenience to this country, it is preferred to use a name even though that country does not use it. It is an example in support of the view that it has not always been the practice in this country automatically to follow the name another country has seen fit to use. Other examples will no doubt leap to the minds of hon. Members which would establish that there is no such automatic rule.
It is surely important, particularly when dealing with a highly controversial matter, that we should not have to use ambiguous terms meaning one thing to one party and a totally different thing to another. There are dangers in using terms and phrases which both sides are using in different senses. Those of us who are in an overwhelming majority, and desperately hope for reasonableness, calm and order to develop in the island of Ireland, should be careful to make sure that, in using any name or expression in this Bill or in any subsection of any Measure which the House may consider, we should never use words which can be given, or are entitled to be given, a different meaning by some of the people who use them from the meaning attributed to them by others.
It does seem that the unobjectionable term "the Irish Republic" is the preferable one. It can surely meet all that is desired of it. It describes with perfect accuracy that state which is coming into being on the other side of St. George's Channel, and it has the more dubious advantage of having already received the approbation of His Majesty's Government. I am speaking from memory, but I recollect that in the communiqué that was issued at the end of the preliminary meeting of the Council of Europe, the term "Irish Republic" was used


by His Majesty's Government to describe that State now described as "the Republic of Ireland." Therefore, His Majesty's Government at that time thought it a not unreasonable expression to use. No doubt that phrase was used before the Government in Dublin had indicated their preference, but I quote it to show that it was thought by reasonable people in this country to be the proper and appropriate description. That term has no ambiguity. It cannot arouse ill-feeling in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, and it accurately and precisely describes without equivocation the new Irish State in Southern Ireland. It is because it seems to me to fulfil all these desiderata, to offend no one and to describe accurately, that I ask the Committee to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Keeling: In the speech which my hon. Friend quoted, the Prime Minister said that one could not refer to a country by some other name than the one by which it claims to be known and that it would be impossible, at all events in a statute, to adopt a different name. I do not know what those words "at all events in a statute" mean. It would not be open to the Government, once the words "Republic of Ireland" have been put into a British statute, to use the words "Irish Republic," and therefore it does not seem to me that the Prime Minister's proviso has any relevance at all.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, in putting in these words, "Republic of Ireland," the Government are establishing a dangerous precedent which will certainly be quoted against this country in the future. My hon. Friend has referred to the Argentine, which already puts the Falkland Islands on its postage stamps as part of the Argentine. It is conceivable that the Argentine Congress might declare that country "the Republic of the Argentine and the Falkland Islands." I will give another example which I think is even better. Two years ago the Egyptian Prime Minister, in the Egyptian Chamber, asserted "the permanent unity of Egypt and the Sudan under the Egyptian Crown." The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, in this House, promptly and rightly refused to accept that, because it was inconsistent

with the Sudan's right, if it chose, at some future date to claim its own independence. He said that if we accepted the Egyptian claim, we should be false to our promises to the Sudan. I say that if we were to accept Southern Ireland's claim, we should be false to our promises to Northern Ireland.
Of course, in the past other countries have never accepted our claims of that sort. Right up to 1800 every Act of Parliament referred to the King as "King of Great Britain, France and Ireland," but so far as I know neither France nor any other country ever accepted that claim because it had no substance at all—and neither has the claim of Southern Ireland to the title of "Republic of Ireland" any substance at all. The fact is, as was said by more than one of my hon. Friends during the Second Reading Debate, this title, "Republic of Ireland" is a challenge and it is not too late for this Committee to take up that challenge.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I hope this Amendment will not keep the Committee very long, and I certainly shall not do so. We have had two very moderate speeches phrased in most conciliatory language in its support. I cannot, however, agree with everything that was said by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He said that we should not give offence to anyone by his proposal. I think we should give some offence in Dublin and gain no advantage by doing so, and that is one of the reasons which moves me in this matter.
11.0 p.m.
It is the name chosen by the Dublin Government. It is the name which appears in their own Act and, broadly speaking, as the Prime Minister said, it is the international practice to accept the name which a country gives itself. I cannot remember any case in which that was not done. There may have been cases, but I do not recall them. Certainly we must have regard to the fact that this is a good and useful working rule in international relations. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames gave us an example about Iran. I think that proves our case. We used to call it Persia. We


changed to Iran because they asked us to do so, and we changed back again because we understood that they did not mind. As they now very much like to refer to themselves as "Persians," I understand that that is why it is done.
If we adopted the name which the hon. Member suggests, we should certainly involve ourselves in troubles of various kinds. The Government of Dublin—I so designate them, as it is convenient for this context—already send delegations to a considerable number of international conferences and meetings of different kinds, and no doubt they will some day be elected to the United Nations with our support, and there they will be constantly engaged in international meetings almost all the year round. The other delegations at those meetings are quite certain to give them the title which they themselves choose. They will be called "the Republic of Ireland" without any doubt, and if we insist on saying something different, we shall very soon find ourselves in an embarrassing situation.
If there were any good reason for doing this, any reason of substance, the embarrassment ought to be accepted. If they called themselves "the Republic of the British Isles," we should certainly be entitled to protest. Of course, we should never put it in our statutes, and I feel sure that other countries would not recognise it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the right hon. Gentleman says that we would not put it in our statutes, do I take it that he is not accepting the Prime Minister's doctrine, quite clearly stated in his speech which I quoted, that we must adopt in our statutes whatever name they select?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That rule must, of course, be subject to the proviso that in choosing names for themselves, Governments act with a proper sense of responsibility—and they do, broadly speaking. I was saying that if there were a strong reason of substance for accepting the embarrassment to which the hon. Member's course would perhaps lead, we ought to accept it, but I do not think there is any strong reason, and I will explain why. The Clause makes it plain that, in using the phrase "Republic of Ireland," we mean the territory which we have heretofore called "Eire" and before that "the

Irish Free State." This subsection must be read with subsection (1, a). Together they put that beyond doubt of any kind. The only possible way in which doubt could be aroused would be by a division in this Committee, because that would make the world think that some hon. Members in this Committee thought that there was doubt. I do not believe that there is any. I do not believe that in any way we should recognise the claim of the 26 counties to sovereignty or jurisdiction over the Six Counties, and I therefore hope that the Committee will accept the Clause at it stands.

Mr. Eden: I am not altogether happy with the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, and I am not sure that he was; at least, I do not think he was when he was talking about "broad practice." I could think of all sorts of other examples, and so could he, in which we have not been prepared to accept the names with which other people crowned themselves. Of course, this is not a general example; it is a particular example which affects us very much owing to the proximity of Ireland and the long and unhappy history which has preceded these events. I do not want to go into examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) mentioned the Sudan. The right hon. Gentleman, with his Foreign Office experience, will remember the perpetual argument of the Egyptians who wanted to regard themselves as having single sovereignty over the Sudan, which we do not accept.
My hon. Friend mentioned the claim, which went on all through the Stuart era and later, that we had sovereignty over France. So far as I know, the French felt in no way compelled to put anything in their legislation to give effect to that belief of ours. When I was discussing this matter with one of my hon. Friends, he produced a coin of the period of Charles II. It is a beautiful coin. Most of the words have been rubbed out, but there remain quite distinctly the words "Franca et Hibernia." Of course, that was on our coinage 200 years ago. Nobody else paid any attention to it in their legislation. Broadly speaking, I do not think we are under any obligation to accept any name which any other country chooses to call itself.
If that were the only issue before us, I should not, perhaps, be pressing this Amendment further, but there is much more to it than that. We all know quite well, in our own minds, why it is that the Irish Government want to call themselves "Republic of Ireland." If we had any doubts—and we had doubts at the beginning—the whole attitude of the Press in Dublin and public statements in Dublin in the last few days have made it abundantly clear why they want to call themselves the Republic of Ireland. They have made it plain in their speeches since we have been debating this topic that they want to do that because they regard the Six Counties as being part of Ireland, that they should be a part of Ireland and that they are, morally, already under their jurisdiction.
That is why they have used this phase "Republic of Ireland"; it is because they think all Ireland is part of their Republic We do not think that—or, at least, most of us do not; and I think we should be very unwise if we deliberately put into our legislation these words which we know are used by the Government of Dublin, to use the right hon. Gentleman's term, with an entirely different intention from that which we should have when we put them into the Bill. I do not think it is good Foreign Office practice deliberately to use the same words knowing they have an entirely different meaning. I should prefer complete clarity. I do not think that the phrase "Irish Republic" could possibly offend anybody. No Irishman could possibly mind being called Irish and no Republican could possibly object to being described as a member of a Republic. How could it be wrong, and how could it be rude or discreditable for anyone to be called that?

Mr. Gallacher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that when we discussed the Bill on the Treaty Ports, I drew attention to the fact that the Government were de jure recognising the Government of Ireland? They used the term "Eire"—it is in the Measure. What is the difference between recognising the Government of Ireland and recognising the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Eden: I would not mind very much recognising the Irish Republic and I would not, perhaps, have minded this

phrase very much had it not been for the connotation which I know Dublin is placing upon it.

Mr. Gallacher: It is the same connotation as in the case of the word "Eire." When they changed the name from "the Irish Free State" to "Eire"—that is the Gaelic for Ireland—they were putting the connotation on it which the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting is being placed on the phrase "Republic of Ireland," but the Chamberlain Government passed an Act, and I drew attention at the time to the fact that they were recognising de jure the Government of Ireland. What is the difference between recognising the Government of Ireland and recognising the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Eden: I do not know that I have any responsibility for the matters to which the hon. Member refers, but I am dealing now with what has been said in the last few weeks by the Dublin Press and the spokesmen in Dublin. Everybody knows perfectly well—so far as I know there is no dispute about it—that the reason these words "Republic of Ireland" have been chosen instead of the words "Irish Republic," or anything else, is to indicate in the minds of Dublin their control over the whole of geographical Ireland, as they call it. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) says that is right. That is exactly why I do not want it put in the Bill, because I think it is wrong.

Mr. Gallacher: rose—

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member must let me finish my sentence; we must pursue our argument in some order. The hon. Member for West Fife exactly explains the position I take. I do not like these arrangements, because he means one thing by these words and I mean something totally different. I dislike any arrangement that puts something of that kind into a Bill.

Mr. Fairhurst: If the Government in Dublin asked for these words, and the rest of the countries in the world used them, and we used something different, would that not put this country in an embarrassing position?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I would mind that. When the name of Persia


was changed, we were calling her Persia when everybody else was calling her Iran. This is a country in respect of which we are putting something in a Bill. I object to putting in a Bill words which mean one thing to me and another thing to the hon. Member for West Fife and saying we are agreed, because we are not.

Mr. Beattie: I think the right hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. It is a reaction to certain statements in Dublin by responsible Ministers in that Government. I want to inform the right hon. Gentleman—and if there is anyone in this Committee who should know, it is he—that on Easter Monday, 1916, the declaration was made of the Republic of Ireland, and that name has remained the ideal and aspiration of all responsible people in Irish life.

Mr. Eden: Why does the hon. Member say I should know? I was only soldiering in France then.

Mr. Beattie: If the right hon. Gentleman was soldiering in France when the declaration giving that title to Ireland was made, so were many thousands of others, but they have not lived to be ignorant of the origin of the Republic of Ireland. All this opposition to the title adopted by the Government in Ireland is the reaction to the speeches that have been made within the last few weeks by responsible Ministers of that Government. I did not think the right hon. Gentleman possessed the vindictive spirit he has shown this afternoon, but he has now come out in his true colours. He has thrown bouquets to Irish life, but I have now got him right in his proper place and in his true colours, and he is declaring that it is a nicer phrase, and easier to say, "Irish Republic." But whether he likes it or not, or this Committee likes it or not, Ireland has declared that the title of her country shall be now and for ever more, the Republic of Ireland.

11.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: Certainly we in Northern Ireland strongly object to this title "Republic of Ireland." Even when the South of Ireland was called "Eire" or "the Irish Free State," we had

mistakes in our letters and parcels going down through the South. I have even had a letter from the Foreign Office addressed to "County Down, Eire." I think that the title "Republic of Ireland" will add to this confusion. Anything with the name "republic" in it is certainly obnoxious to most of the people in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Beattie) has mentioned the Rebellion in Dublin on Easter Monday, 1916. It is a time like that, when British soldiers were ambushed and shot, which makes the name "Irish Republican Army" anathema in the North. In the North we are allergic to republics. After all, it is a new form of Government. We prefer the old way, the constitutional monarchy, and not a new form. Only one republic in the world has lasted more than 200 years, and that is the Republic of Switzerland. I do not know the reason for that—perhaps it is because, or in spite of the fact that, women do not have the vote in Switzerland. At any rate, we in Northern Ireland heartily support this Amendment and object to the title "Republic of Ireland."

Mr. John Foster: I want to ask for some information. Is what we assume in this debate true, that the Government in Dublin call themselves the "Republic of Ireland"? It is a subject on which I have no knowledge. Is not their official language Erse and do not they call themselves the Republic of Eire?

Mr. J. Beattie: Eire is Ireland.

Mr. Foster: Therefore, it is our translation of their foreign language. It is like the Germans calling themselves Deutschland, while we call them Germany. The argument the right hon. Gentleman used, that it was the expression used by the Irish themselves, I believe is not well-founded in fact. The compromise that could be adopted would be to use "Republic of Eire." It may be that that title would not endear itself to everybody on this side, but then it would be clear that the expression they used did not include Northern Ireland. It would conform to the principle the hon. Member laid down, that we must use the expression used by the Irish themselves. We are now adopting Eire's translation


into English of their expression. I think it is important to differentiate between what the Irish actually use and their translation of what it should be. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has thought of that. I do not think he remembered that the official language of the Irish is Erse.
There is very good ground for using the English translations of foreign names. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman may remember a famous memorandum which emanated from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in the middle of the war. The right hon. Gentleman had noticed that the Foreign Office had used the spelling of the capital of Turkey as Ankara instead of Angora. He said: "It is my wish and my directive that we should revert to the old-established practice of spelling Angora. I do not see why we should abandon old English practice for the whim of a few foreigners who live near the place." That is a humorous aspect of it. It is true here that there is no need to use an expression which may offend certain people just because, for the Government, it is a question of prestige or face-saving to change the name. In the spirit of compromise, to achieve the principle the right hon. Gentleman asked for and the object my hon. Friends wish, I think we should adopt the exact words which the Irish use. I think they will support the suggestion.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The argument of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) is a very ingenious one, but I think he is wrong on the facts. I speak, of course, subject to correction. The first title given to the unit which now calls itself the "Republic of Ireland" was, though I cannot pronounce it, something like "Saorstat Eireann." That was in Erse. We translated it "Irish Free State." The next title was "Eire," given to it by Mr. de Valera. That also was Erse. As the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said, it means "Ireland," and it implied exactly the same territorial claim, if there is any territorial claim, as the present title; and it was so intended, and was so accepted, and we used it. In the present Act which has been passed by the Parliament in Dublin——

Mr. Foster: In Erse.

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, in English. There is nothing in that Act in Erse. The title is the "Republic of Ireland," and it is called the "Republic of Ireland Bill."

Mr. Foster: The Eire version is the one to copy. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has carried the implication far enough. There must be an Erse version.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think the argument is not a very difficult one and that, if I may say so without being fulsome or impertinent, it has been convincingly put by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster). There are one or two short points to which I would ask the attention of the Treasury Bench. One is that they are going to run into difficulties if they take it as an absolute rule that any country may call itself what it likes irrespective of the desires of any other form of society which geographically overlaps it, or occupies part of what once was it. They are going to run into difficulties with India and Pakistan if they pursue that rule.
The second small point to which I would ask them to give attention is that, as a result of the operation of a later Clause in this Bill, the earlier part of this subsection is retrospective. I do not think it can be denied that there is at least some tendency to a claim to governmental rights over the whole geographical area of Ireland in using the term "the Republic of Ireland." Right hon. Gentlemen opposite would no doubt resist that claim, but would not deny that that claim is implicit in the words "Republic of Ireland." If I carry them with me so far, do not they see that by phrasing this subsection in this form they weaken very much the force of subsection (1, b)? Having there said that part of Ireland shall not become part of the Republic of Ireland except by its own consent, they here attribute to the Republic of Eire a title which has retrospective validity from, I think, 18th April, which does, on their own admission, contain some claim to political authority over the whole geographical entity. I do not think that can be denied.
The third point is also a small one, but I think is unanswerable and a real one, and not a debating point only. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke said there was no difference between "Eire"


and "Ireland," one is the Anglo-Saxon form and the other the Erse form. But the difference is surely that "Eire" can be, and is, used by Englishmen, and can be, and is, largely used by foreigners to mean that part of geographical Ireland which is governed by the Erse-speaking dissident community; whereas "Ireland" can be, and is, used by Englishmen and by almost all foreigners to mean the geographical entity, the island of Ireland.

Mr. Scollan: rose—

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me one minute; I ask the Treasury Bench to say that we are doing a thing—it was said by Aristotle and by Plato, and has been said over and over again down the years—which reminds us that there was never an instance of emergency legislation affecting a matter of principle in which it does not turn out later on that the affecting of the principle has serious practical effects. That is a universal human experience and, therefore I think that these three small points are a strengthening of the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and by my right hon. Friend on the front Opposition Bench, and which no attempt has ever been made to answer. I ask the Treasury Bench to meet us on this.
There is one last point. I am sorry about this, but the Government should have this motive for meeting us; the business of His Majesty's Government is not primarily to nationalise steel, or anything else, but to govern His Majesty's dominions, and they have demonstrated, as they have frequently demonstrated before, that they cannot, with only the support of their own party, govern His Majesty's dominions. When it comes to foreign affairs, and a matter such as conscription, and matters of high state, and it is not just the peddling projects of party politics, they have to rely on this side of the Committee; and we have some right, therefore, to expect them to accept arguments which they cannot answer.

Mr. Scollan: I should not have intervened had it not been for the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). This Bill seems to have been framed by somebody intent on raising the

dead spirit of the old Irish fight. I call attention to the favourable position given to the citizens of Ireland and Eire in this country as being unparalleled in the world. I intended to take no part in the Debate, but the hon. Member for Cambridge University proceeded to demonstrate his ignorance of Ireland and the origin of Erse. He said that Erse was confined to the South, and that the titles which Ireland give itself in the early stages—and this is an important point in this controversy—were the same as cases where people gave themselves two different names.
11.30 p.m.
Erse has survived, not only in the South, but in the North, and it survived all the Anglicisation which was tried from the days of Cromwell, right down to 1916. Right to the present day, the original native language survives in the North. One finds in the South of Ireland that the people there are always perfect English speakers—better English speakers than the English are. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Like the Scots."] Exactly, like the Scots; and the reason is they are taught to speak a foreign language properly. The consequence is that they can speak it better than the natives of this country. They took the name of "Eire," which means the whole of Ireland and not a part of Ireland, and it is a very poor excuse for somebody to come here and say, "Yes, that may be true, but you see, we did not understand that; we understood it only meant that part which came in the Republic and consequently we who framed this Bill misunderstood it."
That is the logic of the argument that is put forward here. The first Government in this country—of which, I think, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was a member—which recognised Eire from the whole of Ireland, gave de jure recognition to Eire and did not give de facto recognition. In fact, what is rather strange about the whole history of the relationship between Ireland and England is that everything seems to be done topsy-turvy and upside down. In the relations between any other two countries in the world, this situation has not existed. There is no other country in the world which has been given de jure recognition and not de facto recognition. But that is


the case on this occasion. I do not know whether it is intentional or not. I should be prepared to accept that probably the framers of this Bill did not realise it, but they actually put into the Bill the correct translation of the original Bill. Now they are saying we should put in the Bill words which everybody in Ireland would realise meant that we would segregate the North from the South and treat those who are not with us as "untouchables."
In the same breath they say, "The beautiful old country and the lovely people"; yet we perpetuate a feeling of bitterness by petty little things like this, by putting in an Amendment of this kind. I am going to vote for the Bill as a whole; I am going to support the Government in my constituency or anywhere else; but when it comes to petty, pinpricking Amendments of this character, I think somebody should be big enough to say, "We are not going to have that sort of thing; we are going to make the best of it." We have given gratuitously a present to them, that this Parliament will not settle the issue but that their Parliament will settle it.

The Deputy-Chairman: That has already been said on an earlier Amendment.

Mr. Scollan: Yes, but I hope we are not going to carry this on as a vendetta, or carry on petty pin-pricking of this character, and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I do not think there is any question of carrying this on as a vendetta, particularly from the point of view of the arguments I propose to put forward. The clearest anomaly of all the anomalies of this situation is that we call ourselves "The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." How a Parliament can allocate a title to another country when Northern Ireland is implicit in that title, I am blessed if I can see. I should have thought that was a very powerful argument. We feel that the title "The Republic of Ireland" jumps the claim, and I think the people who assume that title, intend it to jump the claim. I think the Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

should think twice before it allows that claim to be jumped.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I intervene for only one minute to answer a question that was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. He asked quite definitely whether there was any reason why this change should be made from the "Republic of Ireland" to the "Irish Republic." I will give him a simple answer. It is that the name "Republic of Ireland" is not the factual description of Southern Ireland. Mr. Costello and Mr. de Valera are living in a world of whimsy. They believe that by devising a name, they can have a State to fit it. Michael Collins, who was a realist, accepted the name "Irish Free State": he did not want the name "Free State of Ireland." Why should we give way to hysterical people, men who are not as great as Michael Collins, and have this unusual, irresponsible and undescriptive name of what is only a portion of Ireland? If His Majesty's Government persist in supporting the claim of Southern Ireland, I suggest that my Ulster friends should put down an Amendment on the Report stage insisting that wherever the term "Northern Ireland" is mentioned there should be substituted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggested, the term "the Kingdom of Ireland."

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but we speak of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Hon. Members are surely not proposing to break that up. Everybody accepts it, even the Republic of Ireland.

Sir T. Moore: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am not suggesting anything to break up the happy, friendly and traditional relationship between Ulster and Britain. The mere fact that Ulster would be called the "Kingdom of Ireland" would not mean that one was severing the Kingdom. It would mean that one was giving a fair and proper place to what is a partitioned country. Ulster has as much right to be called the "Kingdom of Ireland" as Southern Ireland has to be called the "Republic of Ireland."

Mr. H. Strauss: I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman the Secre-


tary of State for Commonwealth Relations has made heavy weather over a sensible Amendment. Nothing we do in this subsection will affect in any way what the Government of Dublin choose to call that part of Ireland over which they have jurisdiction. The sole question we are debating is what we shall call it in our statutes. What we want to call it is something that will not insult or cause injury to any part of Ireland. I think these are what all hon. Members would consider the desiderata of the case. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, quite clearly and rightly, interpreted what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said on Second Reading as subject to the limitation that the name chosen by the other country must be reasonable before we use it in our statutes. In the present case I do not think it will be disputed by anybody that the "Republic of Ireland" is chosen by those who use it as a term implying a claim to the whole.
Speeches in Dublin, and indeed, in this Committee today have made this perfectly clear. That is undoubtedly offensive to the other part of Ireland, namely, Ulster. There has been no evidence put before the Committee that the Government in Dublin would mind in the least our calling what they call the "Republic of Ireland" the "Irish Republic" in our statute. It is in no way insulting: it is a perfectly polite expression and is perfectly truthful. To adopt the phrase the "Republic of Ireland" in our statute would be resented by Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as Dublin would resent it if we referred to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and dropped the word "Northern" from the title. That, to my mind, would be a parallel

folly. I am not suggesting it for a moment. I happen to have many friends in Southern Ireland; I have spent happy days there; and I hope to do so again, and I would not be a party to anything which wilfully, or in any way, insulted them. But no one has suggested that "Irish Republic" is a wrong or insulting title: it is a title which will not give offence to any part of geographical Ireland, and for those reasons and the reasons put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) I beg the Government to reconsider their decision.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. and learned Member tell me why he supported the Chamberlain Government when they included in a Bill the phrase "Government of Eire" when the hon. and learned Member knew, or ought to have known, that the change from "Irish Free State" to "Eire Government" meant including the whole of Ireland?

Mr. Strauss: I happened to be ill and away from the House when that Bill was brought forward and discussed. The hon. Member has, however, produced something which is more like an argument than anything produced by the Front Bench. The great distinction is that nobody in Ulster dreamt of describing Ulster as any part of Eire, and therefore that title gave no offence whatever in the North, however the hon. Member might have chosen to translate it. This title "Republic of Ireland," however, does give real offence to Ulster.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 79.

Division No. 142.]
AYES
[11.43 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Blyton, W. R.
Collins, V. J.


Albu, A. H.
Bottomley, A. G.
Colman, Miss G. M.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bowen, R.
Comyns, Dr. L.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)


Attewell, H. C.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Crawley, A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Balfour, A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Daggar, G.


Barton, C.
Brown, George (Belper)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Berry, H.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Beswick, F.
Chamberlain, R. A.
Deer, G.


Bing, G. H. C.
Champion, A. J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Binns, J.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Delargy, H. J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Cobb, F. A.
Diamond, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Collindridge, F.
Dobbie, W.




Dodds, N. N.
Kinley, J.
Sargood, R.


Donovan, T.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Scollan, T.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lews, A. W. J. (Upton)
Segal, Dr. S.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, J. (Botton)
Sharp, Granville


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lindgren, G. S.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Dye, S.
Logan, D. G.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Longden, F.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lyne, A. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McAllister, G.
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McGhee, H. G.
Skinnard, F. W.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Ewart, R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Snow, J. W.


Fairhurst, F.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fernyhough, E.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Field, Capt. W. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sparks, J. A.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Steele, T.


Foot, M. M.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Stokes, R. R.


Forman, J. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stubbs, A. E.


Gallacher, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Symonds, A. L.


Gibson, C. W.
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gilzean, A.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Monslow, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Grey, C. F.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Grierson, E.
Moms, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Titterington, M. F.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llarrettly)
Murray, J. D.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Nally, W.
Usborne, Henry


Guy, W. H.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Walkden, E.


Hale, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Hardy, E. A.
Orbach, M.
Weitzman, D.


Harrison, J.
Paget, R. T.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Haworth, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pargiter, G. A.
West, D. G.


Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wigg, George


Holman, P.
Pearson, A.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Peart, T. F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Horabin, T. L.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)
Pritt, D. N.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Randall, H. E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ranger, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Janner, B.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Willis, E.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Robens, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jenkins, R. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Woods, G. S.


Johnston, Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Yates, V. F.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)



Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rogers, G. H. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Keenan, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Bowden.


King, E. M.
Royle, C.





NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Drewe, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Barlow, Sir J.
Eden, Rt. Hon A.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Birch, Nigel
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Bower, N.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Maude, J. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mellor, Sir J.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Gage, C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Mullan, Lt. C. H.


Challen, C.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Channon, H.
Harden, J. R. E.
Nicholson, G.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nield, B. (Chester)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Cot G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Noble, Comdr A. H. P.


Cote, T. L.
Hope, Lord J.
Odey, G. W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Keeling, E. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pickthorn, K.


Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ropner, Col. L.







Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Studholme, H. G.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Colonel Wheatley and Mr. Digby.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Eden: Now that we have concluded Clause 1, I beg formally to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." I do so only to try to get from the Government an indication as to what are their plans and ideas about tonight's progress. I hope that it will not be considered necessary to sit late in the discussion of this Bill. I do not think that we on this side of the House have taken up more than our fair share of the time. It would be undesirable to discuss these important matters at a very late hour and then to ask the House tomorrow to consider the Third Reading. As the Lord President reminded us, these are very grave matters which we are discussing—very grave indeed; and on principle I think it is a bad thing for such grave issues to be discussed late at night. I hope the Government will give some indication of their intentions.

Mr. Ede: I think we have now discussed the major controversial issues of this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members opposite may say "No," but I have been very carefully through the remaining Amendments and I do not think there is any serious issue, certainly not one of principle, that arises. It is necessary, for obvious reasons that were explained to the House by my right hon. Friend the Lord President when he announced the Business, that this Measure should become law before the House rises for the Whitsun Recess. It is therefore necessary to give sufficient time for another place to discuss it. We do not see that we can secure that if the Bill does not reach them by Wednesday of this week. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that there has been no undue taking of time by the Opposition in the discussion we have had so far today. In fact, I commended one speech from the other side as the best I had heard, and certainly it was the shortest speech of the day. I suggest we should see how we get on, but we must get the Third Reading by the time the House rises for the sitting that will be associated with what is still tomorrow.

We know it is said that "tomorrow never comes," but it will be here in six minutes.
There is this further point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave an undertaking that he would consider certain Amendments which were very much desired by the Opposition with regard to the earlier words in the Clause. We are anxious that those Amendments should appear on the Order Paper so that they can be discussed. If they are to be taken tomorrow it would be desirable to conclude the Committee stage at this sitting. I think the reasons I have indicated are sufficient to indicate that we should endeavour to make sufficient progress with the Bill at this sitting to complete the Committee stage. If, later on, we find that is impossible we may have to reconsider the matter, but I hope that at present the Committee will address itself to the task of dealing with the remaining Clauses. I do not think we are going to run into great difficulties on either side.

Sir Ian Fraser: To prevent embarrassing the Government, I suggest that they report Progress so that they can examine the success or otherwise of their three-line Whip.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 2.—(REPUBLIC OF IRELAND NOT A FOREIGN COUNTRY.)

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "declared," and to insert "provided."
I am a little diffident about this because it is a legal question on which I am conscious of having no professional, and possibly no other, competence. But it seems possible that there is a matter of considerable principle involved here, and if there is, then I feel sure that there is a considerable matter of practical importance arising out of this point. Subsection (1), leaving out the draftsman's necessary verbiage, is in effect as follows: "It is hereby declared that the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country, nor are Irishmen foreigners." That is putting it rather in


drawing room than law court language, but I think it is putting it fairly.
I ask the Committee to consider some of the things said on Second Reading on this point. The Prime Minister said:
If we had had to attempt to make all the citizens of Eire aliens, it would have involved a great expenditure of men and money."—
And again a little later:
Clause 2 (1) declares that the Republic of Ireland shall not be a foreign country."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1861–4.)
He slips, in the second instance, into using words not really appropriate if what is being done is declaratory—not "is not" a foreign country, but "shall not be" a foreign country. Later in the same paragraph he does the same thing, and in col. 1868 says:
It is retrospective to 18th April, 1949"—
—"it is," this is a declaratory Bill.
12 m.
The Lord President of the Council is even plainer in his declaration that Ireland is not a foreign country and Irishmen are not foreigners. He says it over and over again. In Column 1962 he says:
Ireland without this Bill is a foreign state.
In column 1965:
Ireland is a foreign State and Irish folk are foreigners.
In 1966, though this is irrelevant to my argument, it is slightly humorous, he says:
They vote heavily for Labour candidates.
Nor was it only the principal Government spokesman who continually assumed that at this moment and without this Bill Ireland is a foreign country and Irishmen are foreigners; it was also assumed by the principle spokesmen on the Opposition Front Bench and my more than one back bencher on the Government side.
I hope I have made plain the contrast between the apparent declaratory purpose of the Bill and the fact that on the arguments on which the Bill has been presented to us declaration would not be enough, and it would be necessary to alter the law. I say this is carrying the doctrine of Parliamentary omnicompetence far beyond the point of logical completeness to where it topples over

into the merest nonsense. However much the Prime Minister may begin with the usual English self-flattery of how we are all far too clever to be logical and all the better for that, I think it is not certainly true that logic is made for man rather than man for logic, nor is it even certainly true that law is made for man—rather than man for law. It may well be debated that the difference between men and beasts is that men regard Law and logic as having a higher and more real existence even than themselves.
I speak with great deference and if the learned Attorney-General tells me that I am deviating into complete nonsense, I am willing to take his word for it, but it seems to me that this is maybe the most important effect of this. Though here we are legislating only for people within the purview of Parliament, yet that legislation must have effects upon foreigners. I should like to be told, if there is a certain plain answer, is it plainly certain that the Hague Court or the United Nations would, as a matter of course and without the possibility of dispute, hold that where the English Parliament has declared something to be law, which was admitted during the process of that declaration not to be law, foreign and international courts would hold that that was effective to make law? I hope the point is plain. I know it is slightly complicated and may seem slightly theoretical. I fully understand that when Parliament declares something is law, then it is law. I fully understand that when Parliament declares that something always has been the law, then for the purpose of the law courts it always has been law, though historians may be able to demonstrate that in fact it was not so. It is not so plain that it is morally or intellectually tolerable that we should purport to declare what should be the law when we have said in the debates on the passing of the Bill it is not the law.
With great deference to people professionally qualified, I am not certain that a statute so passed in such terms for such reasons would necessarily be held outside this country, perhaps even in the Dominions, to have the effect of altering the law where it purports to declare the law, and plainly on the face of it would not truly do what it was purporting to do. I do not assume that all of my argument is true; but I think that I might fairly


say that if there is any considerable amount of truth in my argument, I think that either this Amendment to substitute for the word "declared," the word "provide," or some Amendment of similar effect preferred either by the Treasury Bench or by the draftsmen, ought to be accepted by the Committee.

The Attorney-General: I am not sure, Mr. Bowles, whether I am right in thinking that we are discussing with this Amendment also the Amendment at line 11.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Deputy-Chairman indicated assent.

The Attorney-General: I am much obliged. That being so, I am sure that you will be gratified to know that the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) agrees with you. We move now from the stormy seas of politics to the placid but pedantic backwater of legal phraseology. The effect of the Amendment is to turn subsection (1) of Clause 2 from the declaratory form into an enactment which sets out deliberately to change the law. The aptness of that depends upon the view taken of what the existing law may be. The view of the Government's present advisers on that matter is that the provisions of the British Nationality Act of 1948 in any event prevent citizens of the Republic of Ireland from being aliens in our law. That being our view, the declaratory form of words, rather than the enacting form, is the more appropriate.
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment was at some pains to refer to observations made during the Second Reading Debate; but on a matter of the drafting involving a question of law the Committee will not wish to take too literally the phrases which were used not in this precise context, on the Second Reading. That will be particularly the view of the Committee since the Lord Chancellor, not once but three times, made clear in another place his view about the law in regard to this matter. Our view is that this subsection correctly declares what the existing law in fact is.
The hon. Member asked me if I would give any guarantee as to what the Hague Court or some other foreign court might say on this matter. I have been in practice at the Bar a little too long to guaran-

tee what any court might say about anything. I would not attempt now to give a guarantee as to the view that the Hague Court or any other foreign court might take.

Mr. Pickthorn: With apologies, may I say since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring specifically to something which I said, that I made no use of the word "guarantee." I asked whether he could say what he thought might, or might not, be the view on this matter if it came before a foreign court.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Member will read tomorrow what he has said, and it will be a melancholy task which I do not really commend to him, he will find that he put it much more strongly. Although he did not use the word "guarantee," he asked me to assure the Committee that the Hague Court would take a particular view. I can only say that I am not prepared to commit myself to the view that the Hague Court might take. These matters are arguable, and different views might be taken about them. The House of Commons cannot legislate for the Hague Court. All it can do is to legislate for our own courts. Even these powers have been a matter about which doubt was felt, because although the Lord Chancellor took one view, another learned and noble Lord took another. As this is a matter on which doubt is felt, the appropriate course, it seemed to us, was to legislate for it in this Bill by means of a declaration. That is the course which Parliament commonly follows when it desires to remove doubts about a matter which has hitherto been in dispute.

Mr. J. Foster: I gather that the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is based on the British Nationality Act; if that be the case, I would remind him that there is there reference to foreign built ships and aircraft, but that does not depend on the Nationality Act. Does he really ask the Committee to take the view that a ship or aircraft built in the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign built ship?

The Attorney-General: If all the citizens of a particular territory are not aliens, then that territory is not an alien territory. That view may be wrong; but that is the view which we take. I am


always prepared to admit that there will be on this, as on all other legal matters, other lawyers who take a different view.
I venture to add this. Strictly legalistic reasons are not really the ones which lead us to think that the existing form of words are the more attractive. We feel that it is the facts, and the historical associations between the two countries; the innumerable relations between our respective citizens; our geographical contiguity; our ties of business and a hundred and one other ties of a non-legal nature, which ought to lead us to think of the Republic of Ireland as different from a foreign country. That is the theory on which we have proceeded; it is based on what is a continuing state of affairs and is, we think, better enunciated in a declaration rather than by a deliberate enactment and a change in the law.
I would say to the senior Burgess for Cambridge University that, from an international point of view, it would no doubt be better that the matter should be expressed in our statutes in a declaratory form. If we had made a deliberate change in the law, our argument before an international court might be more difficult than otherwise it would be. We have adopted this typically English solution for a typically Irish problem and, in any event—although this might well be corrected—the Amendments in the form in which they have been put by the senior Burgess are defective. They indicate an inaccurate view of history, I think, in suggesting, as the second Amendment suggests, that the Republic of Ireland shall not be regarded as having ever been foreign. What he teaches the undergraduates about the position of Ireland before the Plantagenet kings, for example, I do not know, but I am afraid I cannot accept his Amendments.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement of the existing law is correct, I consider that the declaratory form is right; but what, to my mind, is astonishing, is that the advice he has just given differs not only from that given to this House on the Second Reading by the Lord President of the Council (Mr. Morrison) and, therefore, presumably from the advice which the Law Officers tendered to His Majesty's Government at an earlier stage.

It is no use the Attorney-General throwing his senior officer overboard.

The Attorney-General: The Lord Chancellor, many months ago, gave advice, and I hope the hon. Gentleman is not challenging the accuracy of what I have said.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Whatever the Lord Chancellor might have said in another place, if he said it some months ago it was before the Dublin Government produced their Measure which is the cause of this Measure, and before discussion of this Bill which has not yet been to another place. In his winding-up speech on Second Reading, the Lord President of the Council said this:
Indeed it raised the most grave issues because without this Bill, the Republic of Ireland would be a foreign State with all the consequences that that involves, both there and to Irish folk in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1962.]
One is entitled to ask, when that statement has been given to this House by the Leader of the House in winding-up for the Government on a major Bill, if that statement is made after advice has been tendered to the Government by the responsible Law Officers of the Crown? It is really intolerable that this House should be asked to give a Second Reading to this Bill which is of high constitutional importance, and that it should transpire on the Committee stage that the advice given to this House on behalf of the Government was completely inaccurate. Indeed, as I understand it, the very reason that this Committee is sitting at this late hour to discuss this highly important constitutional question is that it was believed that there was urgency in the matter, because Irish nationals had become foreigners since Easter Monday.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view is that these Irishmen are not foreigners, I would respectfully ask him what is the urgency of this Measure? Why is it necessary for this Committee to be sitting at 12.15, with the prospect of sitting for a considerable time, to discuss these highly important matters? I think we are entitled to be told that, because if the learned Attorney-General's advice is right, the one sound and reasonable argument for the urgency of getting this Measure into law before Whitsun has disappeared.
I would not, as I know the learned Attorney-General's professional qualities, venture to challenge the proposition that he made were it not for the fact that it is now a new proposition so far as the Government are concerned. It therefore raised the question as to whether adequate consideration has been given to this matter. Can the Attorney-General tell me whether he has studied the situation which arose after the departure of the United States from the then British Empire? The advice which was then tendered to the Government of that day was given by the Law Officers of the Crown who included, as he knows, the very distinguished lawyer who later became better known as Lord Lyndhurst. Has he studied that too? It would seem that at that time lawyers of no less erudution than the right hon. and learned Gentleman took a different view.
It does seem therefore that we are placed in a highly unsatisfactory position. We are faced with a complete reversal of the Government's point of view within a week. We are given no opportunity to consider and ourselves to seek advice and authority on this matter. Certainly I and other hon. Members had entered upon this Debate and had tabled Amendments on the understanding that the Government would at least stick to the proposition which they put to the House of Commons last week. We are naturally therefore at some disadvantage when we are called upon to controvert a diametrically opposite proposition of law. I ask for a re-assurance that the authorities have been consulted relating to the very similar situation which arose when the United States parted company from this country.
I think that at the end of the Attorney-General's speech the true reason leaked out for the use of this declaratory form. I believe the need of this form is the desire to bluff the Hague Court or the courts of other foreign countries on this matter, to try to persuade them that the House has not enacted a new and interesting expedient, in which a new international status is created, neither foreigner nor citizen—a sort of political hermaphrodite.
This is an interesting and arguable proposition of great constitutional importance. An attempt is being made to escape

responsibility for putting forward a novel doctrine by the blatant pretence that it has existed all along by reason of the close association existing between the two islands over many centuries. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had experience of the Hague Court. It may be that as a result of this experience he rates its intelligence very low, but its intelligence surely is not so low that it will be taken in by a device of this kind. Surely he appreciates that that kind of trick, which might possibly work in a police court in some of the remoter parts of this country, is not going to carry great weight with some of the greatest jurists in the world. Surely he appreciates that the kind of expedient which it is admitted the Government have had in mind, is one unworthy of the principal Law Officer of the Crown and unworthy of any British Government.

Mr. J. Foster: I want to prolong the argument I had with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a question which I put to him earlier. He says his advice at present is that a foreign-built ship or aircraft does not include a ship or aircraft built in the Republic of Ireland since 18th April. The Clause says:
The Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's Dominions.
In order to make it part of the Dominions he has to advance the interesting and novel theory that anybody in a certain part of the world is a British subject it becomes British territory. Imagine five British subjects at the North Pole. Therefore, the North Pole is British territory, and a ship or aircraft built at the North Pole is not a foreign-built ship or aircraft. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that during the 19th century there were many places where there were nothing but British subjects, where His Majesty's laws had vigour and these people were subject to the laws of the United Kingdom. It is expressly declared in the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, that these places were not British territories. Where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman get his theory from?
Assuming that all persons born in Eire, or present in Eire, on 18th April are British subjects, where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman get his theory that Ireland is part of the British Dominions when the Clause says that it


is not part. He has got himself into a difficulty, and he will have to say, of course, that the object of the British Nationality Act is not that two and two make four but that the British genius is to disregard this theory because they have indulged in a spirit of compromise and not of logic for so long. I do not think he ought to tell the House that the Republic of Ireland was not a foreign country on 18th April by basing it on the fact that everybody in Eire was a British subject under the British Nationality Act.

The Attorney-General: I have never suggested they were British subjects under the Act, and if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Act he will see that is not so.

Mr. C. Williams: To an ordinary person not a lawyer our position in this Committee has become perfectly intolerable. Only a few days ago the Lord President of the Council laid down quite clearly who were foreigners and who were not. Now we have the Attorney-General apparently contradicting him absolutely flatly. This is not a matter in which the Government ought to have presented any form of legislation to the House until, at any rate, the Cabinet understood what the Law Officer meant and until the Law Officer had seen that the Cabinet understood the real position, especially the Lord President. This is an extremely serious matter when we are dealing with constitutional points. This is not a question on which the Attorney-General ought to come here and say, "We cannot say what this, that or the other court is responsible for or what they will do." This is a matter on which the best legal authorities which the Government can get ought to have made their position perfectly clear.
We are used to this Government contradicting itself, but when they go into high matters of great importance, it is absolutely and utterly wrong that they should come to the House and try to force through legislation of this kind at this time of night when there can be no doubt whatever from what my hon. Friend said just now that they themselves really have not given anything like adequate discussion and consideration to the legal side of this matter. Whenever in the past we have had to deal with important legal matters, almost invariably the Law Officer of the day has taken much more

pains than the Attorney-General has tonight to see that the Government spoke with one mind on the subject and also that they were perfectly clear that the matter had been worked out in the best way. I very much regret that we are being called on to do these things without proper consideration at a time of night when, quite clearly, the House should not be considering a matter of such very great importance.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Attorney-General has done his utmost to resist the Amendment by trying to assert that this Clause does nothing but declare that which exists at the present moment. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not done is to explain, if that is right, why only five days ago the Lord President of the Council, presumably acting on legal advice, told this Committee quite the opposite, because then he said:
It must be remembered that at the moment legally the Republic of Ireland is a foreign State and Irish folk in this country are foreigners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1964.]
If that is right then, it is not easily reconcilable with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has told this House tonight. Before we part from this Clause, we should have the matter put completely beyond doubt. I should have thought that there could be no harm at all in accepting the Amendment. It would put the matter beyond doubt, instead of leaving it as it is, with a patent conflict between what the Lord President told the House on Second Reading and what the Attorney-General told the Committee tonight. I would ask him whether we would not make more progress by accepting this and the subsequent Amendment.

12.30 a.m.

The Attorney-General: I shall first deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). If the North Pole was occupied—I mean "occupied" in the legal sense—and its occupants were not aliens, I would certainly say that the North Pole, being the territory belonging to those non-aliens, was non-alien territory. I should have thought that the contrary view was quite unarguable.

Mr. J. Foster: Surely occupation must be in the light of the sovereign Power? If five British people occupied the North


Pole and hoisted the flag, it would be occupied by Great Britain, but if five U.K. citizens who belong to a foreign country—which is the assumption here—go to the North Pole, they are not occupying it on behalf of the United Kingdom and it is foreign territory.

The Attorney-General: That is not the assumption here. We are not concerned with U.K. citizens but with citizens who are not citizens of the U.K. but at the same time are by definition not foreigners, and not aliens. That being so, if they have occupied territory in the legal sense and that territory belongs to them, that is not an alien territory.

Mr. Mikardo: Do not the Attorney-General and the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) think they are very unwise in pursuing this argument about five British citizens who have occupied the North Pole, because that is bound to result in tomorrow's edition of "Pravda" giving this as evidence of renewed British aggression?

The Attorney-General: Then I come to the observations of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I must confess that I have not studied in great detail the opinion given by Lord Lyndhurst in regard to the situation which arose when America ceased to be a British Dominion. On that occasion there had not been, as there has been on this occasion, a British Nationality Act in the terms of the Act which we passed last year, and the opinion which may have been taken by Lord Lyndhurst on the matter at that time would therefore be of little assistance to us in the present matter.
Our view is based entirely on the terms of the British Nationality Act, 1948. We may be wrong about it. I conceded that; that is quite possible. In any matter of law there is always a lawyer on one side who takes one view and a lawyer on the other side who takes the opposite view. It is fortunate that that is so. One of them is wrong. I am quite content to believe that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and I may be wrong. We know that one noble and learned Lord and one of His Majesty's counsel took the opposite view.
It is because we have realised that we may be wrong and that the matter is one which may be in doubt, that we have felt it urgently necessary to remove the doubt. That is the answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. I do not presume to lay down the law in this House and certainly still less in the country, and where matters of law are in doubt, one seeks to remove the doubt by having a declaratory provision in a statute. That is the usual Parliamentary procedure to remove doubts.
The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) asked about the speech of my right hon. Friend the Lord President. All I can think is that the Lord President had come fresh from reading the view of the noble and learned Lord who, as we know, differed from my noble Friend in another place, but he was not seeking to give legal advice to the House. Had I noticed what he said at the time, I might have taken the opportunity of correcting it, but——[HON. MEMBERS: "He was wrong."] I was about to say that in my respectful view he was wrong. The Government had been advised—this appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT in another place on a number of occasions—in exactly the opposite sense. It is because we believe on the whole, that our view is the correct one, although quite possibly it may not be, that we seek to remove doubts by this declaratory provision.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with this point? If he is right and the Lord President is wrong on this matter, why is it urgently necessary to push this Bill through in the middle of the night?

The Attorney-General: Because when the law is in doubt in matters of this kind it is most necessary that the doubt should be removed. It would be most unfortunate if we had litigation going through the courts before the doubts have been resolved. The proper thing is to have a declaratory provision, and that is what we seek to do.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(OTHER PROVISIONS AS TO OPERATION OF UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIAL LAWS IN RELATION TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.)

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, to leave out from the begining, to the second "the."
I think it would be convenient if we could discuss at the same time the Amendment in my name in line 46, to leave out the first "is not," and to insert "shall not be."
I shall be extremely brief, because this is a similar point to that which has been raised already, though not identical. If my Amendments were adopted, the effect would be to leave the legal operation of this Clause exactly as it is now, but it would remove a form of words which, I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is not a proper one. A declaratory form is suitable enough when a statute has been long interpreted in one way and then doubts have been cast on the correctness of this interpretation. Then a declaratory Clause is proper. In this case, however, a very strongly held legal view and, in my submission, the correct legal view, is that what is here declared to be the law is not at the moment the law. The phraseology which I suggest would have nothing in it which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would dislike. The Clause would simply read:
The following statutory provisions, that is to say …
—and then follow paras. (a), (b) and (c) as they stand—
shall not be affected by the fact that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions.

The Attorney-General: It is, I think, appropriate, if I may say so, with great respect to the hon. Members concerned, that this Amendment should stand in the names of the hon. Members in whose names it does stand. It is an Amendment which deals only with words, not with causes, not with results. The acceptance of the Amendment would not alter the effect of the Bill in the slightest degree. All that would be done would be to provide by enactment instead of by declaration that the law should be what we already think it is. That is all. I cannot think that there would be any very useful purpose in discussing at great length the subject which we have already discussed on a previous Amendment. I

only say this about the law: it is not an exact science. The only thing you can be sure about in the law is that you cannot be sure about anything until you get the decision of the House of Lords upon it. Although my noble Friend and I took the view that the law as it now stands is set out in the Bill, we realised that the contrary view was possible and might be right. Therefore, we thought it was proper to legislate for it now, to declare what the law is, and thus to save our courts the trouble and our citizens the expense of having to legislate the matter.

Mr. Strauss: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says this Amendment is only about words. So it is. But is it his doctrine that there is no principle about whether these words should be included, that it is never improper to use the words "it is declared"?

The Attorney-General: Certainly, if you were seeking to make what you knew was an alteration of the law, it would be improper to use the words "it is declared." If you are seeking to declare what is the law, then these are the words used, I will not say from time immemorial, but certainly in very many statutes. It is our view that we are declaring what the law is, in order to remove a possible doubt.

Mr. J. Foster: The Attorney-General has assumed that the same point is involved in this case as in the previous Clause. Is he right about that? He based his view on the previous Clause on the fact that in his opinion Ireland had not been a foreign country since 18th April. That does not make the Orders in Council under the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act legal since 18th April. If it is assumed that he is right, it still remains the fact that the Irish Free State is not the Republic of Ireland for the purposes of that Act. Is he really advising the Committee that the present law, before this Bill is passed, is that the Republic of Ireland comes under the definition of "Irish Free State" under the Act mentioned in Clause 3 (1, c)?

The Attorney-General: That paragraph is intended to remove any doubt as to the continuance of these Orders in Council, whose main purpose and effect was to adapt numerous statutes to the position arising from the establishment of


the Irish Free State. One of the important results of that was to ensure the continuance of the system of police arrangements between the two countries. We have taken the view in regard to these matters—and it is really the same point as the hon. and learned Member put before—that, as we have already provided by statute, as we did by the 1948 Act, that the citizens of Ireland were not foreign citizens, that country is not a foreign country, and we have applied that principle logically to this Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, to leave out from the beginning, to "and," in line 42, and to insert:
(b) so much of any Act, or of any Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, as gives effect, or enables effect to be given, to agreements or arrangements made at any time after the coming into operation of the original constitution of the Irish Free State, being agreements or arrangements made with the Government of, or otherwise affecting, the part of Ireland which now forms the Republic of Ireland, including agreements or arrangements made after the commencement of this Act.
This is a drafting Amendment designed to ensure that this paragraph carries out the original intention. It has been suggested, mainly in the Press, that the primary purpose of this Amendment was to safeguard the 1925 agreement. That is not so. Clause 3 (1) is to dispose of the contention that certain statutory provisions fall automatically to the ground now that Eire has become a Republic. These statutory provisions are those giving effect to the existing agreements with the various Governments that have governed that part of the island in future to be known as the Republic of Ireland. The paragraph as it stands describes these agreements as being
agreements described as being between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Eire or as being between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Irish Free State.
12.45 a.m.
In point of fact, the relevant agreements are described in a number of ways and it would be arguable that some of them, for example, the agreement of 1925 which included the Government of Northern Ireland as a party, and the agreement on Income Tax in the Schedule to the Finance Act, 1926, which was described as being between the British Gov-

ernment and the Irish Free State, would not be covered. The Amendment removes this criticism by substituting more general words. It also makes it clear that Acts of Parliament of Northern Ireland, for example, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act (Northern Ireland, 1946, Section 84, and the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, Section 61, which enable effect to be given to agreements as to social services, are not affected by recent changes in Dublin. The words also remove any doubts that may otherwise be felt as to the validity of Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act, 1947, which enabled Northern Ireland Acts to be made dealing with matters, for example, railway bridges between the two countries which may be the subject of arrangements affecting both of them. I think that this substitute paragraph makes it easier to recognise that all these agreements are covered than does the existing phraseology.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, to leave out "section," and to insert "sections five and."
The effect of this Amendment is to remove doubts as to the continued operation of Orders in Council made under Section 5 of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922. This Section enables Orders in Council to be made granting relief in Great Britain and Northern Ireland from taxation so as to avoid double taxation as between those countries on the one hand and the Irish Free State, as it then was, on the other. Orders made under it—for example, those that relate to Legacy Duty, Succession Duty and Stamp Duty—are still in force both in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and it is important that there should be no doubt that this state of affairs continues.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 2, line 47, at the end, to insert:
and that, in the said provisions, and in any Act of Parliament or other enactment or instrument whatsoever, so far as it operates as part of the law of, or of any part of, the United Kingdom or any Colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory, references to citizens of Eire include, on their true con-


struction, references to citizens of the Republic of Ireland.
This Amendment removes any doubt that may still be felt that the references in existing Acts and orders, notably in the British Nationality Act, 1948, to citizens of Eire are to be construed in future as references to citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Whether the Amendment is really necessary is open to question, but we desire that there should be no doubt on this point.

Mr. J. Foster: May I ask the Attorney-General what is the point of the words "on their true construction"? What do they add, and why put them in?

The Attorney-General: As the hon. Member knows perfectly well, this is a very common form of words. I hesitate to say they add anything to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out from the beginning, to "the," in line 2.
I put this Amendment down only to ask somebody to explain to me what is the effect of this provision. On a first view of it, it would not seem to have any very obvious effect. I think the Committee ought not to pass it without knowing the object.

The Attorney-General: We are really following here in substance the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the British Nationality Act, 1948. I quite agree that the words which the hon. Member has in mind "until provision is made to the contrary," which words his Amendment proposes to delete, would be unnecessary if we were dealing only with Acts of Parliament, as one Parliament may repeal what another may enact; but this Clause goes further and deals with Colonial legislatures and subordinate legislatures. The introductory words are necessary to ensure that any power of amendment vested otherwise than in the United Kingdom Parliament, that is, in a Colonial or subordinate legislature, can be exercised. These words override Clause 3 (2) of the Bill. Without this Clause Colonial legislatures would be unable so to legislate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does it include also Statutory Instruments?

The Attorney-General: It would do so, I think. I do not know of any Statutory Instrument which is in point, but the words are apt to cover them.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hale: I put down an Amendment, Major Milner, which I did not intend to press. I was merely seeking information. I apologise for being absent when the Home Secretary opened the proceedings on the Clause. My Amendment expressed doubts about the concluding lines of the Home Secretary's Amendment. It seemed to me that the concluding words
including agreements or arrangements made after the commencement of this Act
involved a danger. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary has considered them carefully, but I could not see how this Parliament could give effect to these words by saying that any agreement or arrangements made in the circumstances outlined would be given effect to, or would not be given effect to, in the circumstances of the Clause as originally drafted. I should be grateful for information on that point.

Mr. Ede: It is desired that the arrangements which have been going on during recent years, and which were more particularly referred to in the Northern Ireland Act, 1947, whereby on matters of mutual convenience arrangements could be made between the Northern Ireland Government and whatever Government might be in power in Southern Ireland, should be continued. We were dealing with things like railway bridges and the level of one of the loughs which it was necessary to have arranged mutually. It is obviously desirable that this kind of thing should be able to go on and should not need some elaborate confirmatory machinery under this Act to ensure the validity of the arrangements. I am assured that these words enable this kind of thing to be carried on.

Mr. Hale: I am a little dubious how far this Committee can say that any future arrangement by the Government of North-


ern Ireland shall not be affected and how far we can commit ourselves to that.

Mr. Ede: This matter was considered. I think it was agreed when the Northern Ireland Act, 1947, was before the House that it was desirable that these arrangements should be encouraged. In fact, I may say that when we got the text of that particular Bill, it went through very quickly. We had a great deal of discussion on the Second Reading about matters which did not appear to be very closely related to the particular Sections in the Act; and further negotiations on these lines, the possibility of the two Governments in Ireland being able to get together on these things, are, I think, about the most hopeful thing that has happened in the government of Ireland; and I hope this Clause will help these negotiations.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AS TO REFERENCES IN ACTS, ETC.)

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, to leave out from "subsection," to the end of the Clause.
It will be seen that subsection (4) concludes with a lengthy proviso, and, at the very end of it we have the words "… and so as respects other expressions." Although I may shock the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, the motive which prompts me to ask that they be omitted is that these words are gibberish and that it is impossible to attach any sense to them. That seems to me a good reason for striking them out, although the Attorney-General may think it is a good reason for leaving them in. I do not say that nothing is required in their place, but the Amendment which I now move is sufficient to express the view that they are gibberish, and I therefore propose their deletion.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is no doubt an expert on gibberish, but I must say the words fail to give me the difficulty which they appear to have given him. They are, I think, really incapable of misconstruction, and though they may be defective in point of grammar, I doubt whether they would lead any court to fail to give effect

to them. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman takes a very strong view about this, I will, in order to show our sense of reasonableness and sense of accommodation, say that I am prepared, not to accept the Amendment in the form in which he has moved it, but to substitute another form of words. It is this:
… and the same principle of construction shall be applied to other similar expressions.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman cares to withdraw his Amendment—because we must have some such form of words in this subsection—I accept the desire for alteration without for a moment conceding that the words are gibberish or that any court or other tribunal would have any difficulty in interpreting them.

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that any schoolmaster, and here I should have the support of the Home Secretary, would say that these words can have any construction placed upon them; but if the right hon. and learned Attorney-General is prepared to substitute the words he has quoted, I shall move them after my Amendment has been carried.

Amendment agreed to.

1.0 a.m.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 26, after "subsection," insert:
and the same principle of construction shall be applied to other similar expressions."—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(RESIDENCE QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTORS IN CONSTITUENCIES IN NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 4, line 32, to leave out "was" and to insert "is."
I hope I can deal with this Amendment quickly. I suppose that the object of subsection (1) is, so to speak, a further protection to the regular inhabitants of Ulster from the risk of occasional incursions for the mere purpose of participating in an election. If that is the purpose, I am not sure in my own mind—and I admit I am not familiar with electoral procedure—that the words produce that effect. I am not even quite sure that the words do not run some risk of producing the opposite effect.
There seems to be an inclination to suppose—and the Prime Minister fell into it on Second Reading—that coming over the border into Ulster makes a person a resident in Ulster. I am not sufficient of a lawyer to say what one has to show to say one is a resident in Ulster, but surely this is not enough. That delusion of the Prime Minister's has been shared by other hon. Members, and by some of those on this side of the Committee. That there is some slight risk of a temptation to fall into that delusion might be strengthened by the form of words as it is here, which might seem, if not to lawyers at least to ordinary people, to lead one to suppose that by spending three months in the Six Counties one acquires residence and is, therefore, entitled to vote. I am sure that is not the intention, and I desire to be reassured that that is not the intention. I would like to believe that my words have that effect, but if my words are technically, or from a draftsman's point of view, inadequate, I hope the Treasury Bench will help in the intention I have tried to make clear.

Mr. Ede: The Committee will recollect that this point arose during the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Act, when an Amendment was moved from the Ulster Unionist bench to provide that some residential qualification should be attached to voting in Northern Ireland. There had been a similar qualification in Britain, but it was abolished by the 1948 Act. At that time, Eire was still a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, but we feel that, as a result of what has happened in Southern Ireland, it is now desirable that a residential qualification should be imposed. The residential qualification we have fixed is a period of three months, which will have to be the three months before the qualifying date. Assuming the qualifying date is 30th June, a person, to be qualified to vote in Northern Ireland for this Parliament, will have to have residence in Northern Ireland on 30th June and have at least three months prior to that date. What constitutes "residence" is, after all, a matter about which lawyers can argue. I think it does mean in this connection a continuous residence in the place for that period.
It is desired that this should prevent the creation of faggot votes by people

who could just move across the border and reside with a relative on the qualifying day and then claim that they had qualified for a vote in Northern Ireland. We believe that, as a practical proposition, the period of three months will remove the likelihood of the creation of faggot votes. This is an Amendment which we believe will achieve the purpose that we have in mind, and I hope I shall not be asked to say precisely what the courts may in the end hold "residence" to mean. I understand that in England, for certain matrimonial purposes, the leaving of a walking stick in a house for a period of three weeks constitutes residence to enable the owner of the walking stick to be married in the parish church of the parish in which he has left that walking stick. We certainly desire that there shall be something more than that, and I think in English law residence, for electoral purposes, has to be something far more substantial than that.

Mr. J. Foster: With great respect to the Home Secretary, I am not sure he has met the point of the Amendment. He did say, about four sentences ago, that he thought this Amendment met the point which was required. He said that this Amendment met the point which the Government had in mind.

Mr. Ede: I am sorry; that must have been a slip. I meant that the Clause as drafted met the point the Government had in mind.

Mr. Foster: I think the Home Secretary meant the Amendment which the Ulster Unionists moved on a previous Bill, the principle of which has been included in his Clause.

Mr. Ede: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to confuse everybody, I will not interfere.

Mr. Foster: I was trying to help the right hon. Gentleman by saying that I thought he meant the Amendment proposed by the Ulster Unionists. The point is that I do not think his brief deals with the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). The point my hon. Friend made was that he thought the Government's object would be better achieved if it were made quite clear that the qualification of the man should be


that he is resident and has been resident for three months. That is the object of the Amendment. His argument was that the words as they are now might give the wrong impression as to what are the qualifications of residence in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ede: It may be. On a point like this, I prefer to state words in my own language rather than in the language one sometimes finds in a Departmental brief, which I find almost as boring as some of the other legal arguments we have been listening to this morning. If what is now said is the point which was in the mind of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), as far as I know that would introduce an entirely new principle into electoral law. It is not required that a person shall be resident in the place for which he is on the register on the date of the election. That has never been a requirement. Let us assume that the qualifying date is 30th June and that the register comes into effect on 15th October, and remains in force for six months until 15th April. It would be very hard to impose the condition that a person, on 14th April, the day before the register expires, must still be resident in the same place in which he resided on 30th June or he would lose his vote.

Mr. Foster: But in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ede: Whether it is in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. In the Representation of the People Act, 1948, the House agreed to the most elaborate provisions whereby a person who moves shall be able, through the exercise of the postal vote, still to have an effective voice in the government of the country.

Mr. Pickthorn: Has he not still to be resident in that place? Am I not still resident in Cambridge at this moment, although I am going to sleep in S.W.1?

Mr. Ede: That may be, but I understood the difficulty that is being put forward to be that a person may not be resident in the place for which he is qualified on the register on the day when the election actually takes place. That was the point put by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster).

Mr. Foster: Not "learned."

Mr. Ede: He has been called "learned", so often tonight that somebody ought to give him silk pretty soon so that his hon. Friends may not so frequently make the mistake. I understood that to be the point, and I say that that would introduce an entirely new requirement which has never been insisted upon, so far as I know—certainly not in modern times. Anybody qualified to vote for this Parliament in Northern Ireland will in future have to be resident there on the qualifying day and for three months before that qualifying day. If he stills resides there after the qualifying day, he will be qualified. If he does not reside there after the qualifying day, but has resided so as to be qualified to go on the register, all the while that register is extant he will be entitled to vote in that constituency. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with that, and I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment. What I said was that in spirit, at any rate, this incorporates the Amendment which was moved to the Representation of the People Act, 1948, by the Ulster Unionists when that Measure was in Committee of this House and when, for what I then regarded as good and sufficient reasons, I advised the House to resist it.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, to leave out subsection (3).
It is with some diffidence that I rush into this wrangle on constitutional law, grammar and Irish politics at this time of the night, but my Amendment is rather different from those which we have just been discussing. It is a paving Amendment for my proposed new Clause [Commencement and Indemnity.]
1.15 a.m.
With your permission, Major Milner, it would be convenient if the two could be discussed together.
My purpose in moving this Amendment is by no means to prevent the Bill


from taking retrospective effect from 18th April this year. On the contrary, what I want to do is to ensure that the retrospection is adequate for the purpose which I think is common to all parts of the House. The Committee has had some considerable discussion this evening as to what is the state of the law which is to be either amended or declared by the Bill. I think it will at least be common ground that there is some chance that as the law now stands an Irishman is not only a citizen of a Republic outside the Commonwealth but is, in fact, a foreigner and an alien, and it is because of that risk that this Bill has been introduced.
If it becomes law the Bill will take effect from the date when all such people might have become aliens and in the ordinary way their position will be that they remain at all times not foreigners for the purpose of English law. If, of course, the Bill should not be passed and if it were held that the Attorney-General was wrong in the view which he expressed, then these people would, in fact, be aliens. If any of them happened to be hon. Members of this House I apprehend that the result would be that any action they might have taken in this House would have been taken by them not as Members of Parliament but as individuals who had ceased to be Members of Parliament.
Two results might flow from that. In the first place, I think they would be open to proceedings at the suit of an informer who could recover £500 for every time they had voted, and as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey), I think, admitted that his home is Connaught, there was the rather extraordinary state of affairs that he would be voting against a Bill passing through this House upon the passage of which he depended to save him not only from this penalty which might be hanging over his head but upon which he actually depended for the validation of his acts here.
I think the position is that if a person who is a Member of this House becomes an alien, then he cannot act as a Member of this House. I was tempted at the conclusion of the Second Reading proceedings of this Bill to put a point of Order to Mr. Speaker to ask him whether, in view of the doubts of the position of a

person who was an Irishman, it was in order for such a person not only to move an Amendment but to tell in the Division. I think that would have put Mr. Speaker in some difficulty because he would, of course, have had to decide that very problem which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General has himself stated to be a matter of acute difference of opinion between learned lawyers in another place. It was not altogether Mr. Speaker's feelings for which I had regard, for it also seemed to me that it would be wrong if we were to seek to appear here to wish to put those among our colleagues who were Irishmen outside this House until this Bill becomes an Act.
It is necessary, in view of these circumstances, that we should be explicit in the Bill as to the position of those who have helped to make the Bill by sitting, voting and moving Amendments here. The form of words my new Clause follows has been used on previous occasions, in particular, in the case of the President of the Board of Trade Act, 1934, when a somewhat similar situation had to be dealt with. I should have thought it was necessary to follow that valuable precedent in this case.

The Attorney-General: I think the hon. Member has misapprehended the effect of the Bill. He has referred to the situation which would arise if it were not passed. But if the Bill were not passed, both the Amendment and the new Clause associated with it would, of course, be of no effect and would afford no protection to the citizen of the Republic of Ireland who had sat and voted in this House in the belief that the British Nationality Act, 1948, entitled him—as in my view it does—so to sit. If this Bill is passed into law, the position is amply covered by the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the British Nationality Act, which are expressly preserved and carried into the scheme of this Bill. That provision gives the citizens of Eire, as they then were, or of the Republic of Ireland, as they now become, all the rights of British subjects under the existing law, and they would therefore be fully covered as from 18th April if and when this Bill receives the Royal Assent.
In any event, the hon. Member's proposed new Clause is defective, since it is apparently limited to giving indemnity to Members of this


House. But there are other people, members of local authorities, and others, who would require indemnity if the position were as he had supposed it to be. I hope he will be reassured that the provisions of the British Nationality Act as carried into this Bill are sufficient to provide the protection he has in mind.

Mr. Gage: It would be churlish for me not to support the Amendment, since it is designed to regularise my own position. I am appalled at the tremendous penalties I have amassed if the hon. Member is right and he does not get his new Clause. It does raise a matter that is very real in the minds of a great number of Irishmen, which I think the Attorney-General can deal with. I have had letters from people who appear to have been born in the most complicated circumstances, all of whom are exceedingly anxious to know what their position is, and whether they are in fact citizens of the United Kingdom. I have explained that I do not give free advice—it is contrary to my principles and to the rules of my trade union—but I see no reason why the Attorney-General should not assist.
I always understood that the British Nationality Act laid down that those people who, at the passing of the Act, were British subjects should remain British subjects provided they were not resident in Eire or in one of the Dominions. Acting on that, I had assumed that "resident in Eire" meant resident in Eire at the passing of the Act. To take my own case, I was born in Southern Ireland and was domiciled there until 1922, when I went to the North. I assumed that I was a person who was a British subject and did not require to apply to the Home Secretary. Then, on Second Reading, the Prime Minister rather upset that, because he proceeded to define "resident in Eire" as people born after 1922 in Eire or people who, if they were born before 1922 in Eire, were resident there in 1922. That covered my case. I would like some assistance from the learned Attorney-General on that. Is that his view?
It seems to me it would be rather astonishing that people living in this country, who had abandoned completely their residence in Eire for some ten years or so before the British Nationality Act was passed, should now find themselves

not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies but citizens of the Eire Republic. This is a question which has worried many Irish people born in Ireland and living over here, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give us his view as to the effect of the British Nationality Act on people who happen to have been born in Ireland but are now living in this country.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the position is quite as clear as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has led the Committee to believe. In any event, I am sure I shall carry him with me when I say that if there is doubt at all about this matter it is highly undesirable to leave any hon. Member who may be affected labouring under the possibility of a common informer action because he sat and voted in this House while incapacitated from so doing. We have heard so much today from the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the need for avoiding doubts, and of declaring to be the law of this country what he says it is and not what the Lord President says it is, that one would have thought he would have welcomed the assistance the hon. baronet the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) gave him.
But I do not think he applied his mind to the study of what the hon. baronet said and, in particular, to the view that a Measure's subsequent regularising of a Member's position does not necessarily exclude a common informer action. He seemed to think that if this Bill becomes law with retrospective effect to 18th April, it would necessarily exclude common informer actions. There is the view to the contrary, that in order to prevent such an action and to deprive the common informer of his rights, a specific provision to this effect must be inserted.
In support of that I would invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the Act which was referred to in another connection by the hon. Member for South Hendon. It is an Act to remove the incapacity of the President of the Board of Trade—another example of what the Senior Burgess for Cambridge (Mr. Pickthorn) calls the "omnicompetence of Parliament." But it does deal with indemnity against common informer actions which may be brought against all Presidents of the Board of Trade since 1909 on the ground that they sat while


incapacitated. In view of the advice of the Law Officers of that day, it not only provides that it should be deemed to have effect from the operation of the Act of 1909—comparable to the retrospective effect of this Bill to 18th April—but it goes on to provide specifically for indemnity. It is also clear that the view taken at that time was that the mere retrospective provisions of the Act did not exclude the possibility of common informer actions.
1.30 a.m.
It was for that reason that a specific indemnity provision was inserted in substantially the same words as are contained in the hon. Baronet's Amendment. I feel that the Attorney-General is running some risk in not accepting that Amendment. If he accepts the Amendment he eliminates that risk. I do not know how many hon. Members might be affected. My hon. Friend behind has indicated that he might be. Certainly other hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate tonight in their speeches have indicated that they might be. It seems unwise to run the slightest risk of humiliating occurrences; of so expensive occurrences. The Attorney-General said that others than hon. Members might be affected; for instance, members of local authorities. That is not an argument against this Amendment; it is an argument for the Government introducing further Amendments to cover them. If there is any risk, the learned Attorney-General has no argument against this Amendment.

The Attorney-General: So far as the case raised by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) is concerned, I must invite his attention to Sections 2 and 6 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. I think that he will find that his question is answered there. Quite shortly, under Section 2 of that Act, a citizen of Eire is entitled to retain the status of a British subject by making a claim, in certain circumstances, to the Home Secretary. Under Section 6, a citizen of Eire resident in the U.K., is entitled to be registered as a citizen of the U.K., and the Colonies. I have no doubt that by one move or the other the hon. Member or his friend, I am not sure which it was, will be able to protect his position. So far as the ob-

servations of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) are concerned it is, as the hon. Member knows better than I do, always unsafe to argue from different words in a different statute.
To accept the Amendment would be to cast grave doubts upon Section 3 (2) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, as preserved in Clause 3 (1) of this Bill. It would make nonsense of the provision in this Bill for preserving that effect. I am confident, as confident as one can be about any matter of law—and I never attempt to lay down the law as a matter of certainty—that the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the British Nationality Act and of Clause 3 (1) of this Bill are sufficient to ensure that no proceedings can be taken against any citizen of the Republic of Ireland for doing things which only a British subject is permitted to do.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments, as amended, to be considered this day and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

DISMISSAL OF MAGISTRATE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

1.35 a.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I am very sorry to delay the House at this hour, but the matter to which I wish to draw attention is one of considerable public importance. The facts are these. On 19th February of this year a man was prosecuted in the town of Llandilo, in Carmarthenshire, for an offence against the Motor Spirit Regulation Act, 1948. The offence was committed on 22nd November, 1948, three months earlier than the date of the hearing. The defendant carried on business as a haulage contractor to British Railways, and as such was entitled to have a petrol pump on his premises in order to provide for commercial vehicles.
This man had served in the First World War, was in numerous actions, and was severely wounded and badly gassed. He had undergone a number of operations since that time, one as recently as January, 1948. As a result of that operation, he


was unable to walk any great distance. He lived two miles outside the town of Llandilo and he wanted to use his car in order to go to that town to obtain petrol. Having run out of ordinary petrol for his car and being unable to walk the distance, he transferred a small amount—a quart—of commercial petrol into his car in order to take him to Llandilo. That is the offence which occurred on 22nd November, 1948, and the facts were put before the magistrates. He pleaded guilty from the start. The bench felt unanimously that the automatic penalties provided by the statute—the disqualification period of twelve months—were in these circumstances very much too severe. That was the unanimous decision of the bench.
The chairman of the bench, Colonel Delmé Davies Evans, a magistrate of 36 years' experience, and of 20 years' experience as chairman of that bench, has, I may say, services as distinguished as they were long. The bench was not responsible for the words he used, but only for the view. He expressed the decision of the bench thus:
We think.
he said, addressing the defendant,
that the way this Act is worded, saying that your car has to be out of action for 12 months, is a regular scandal. We do not call it British; we call it a very evilly worded Act, but we must fine you something".
A fine of one shilling was imposed, and the automatic disqualification was applied; the analyst's fee was disallowed. That fee, in my view, was quite properly disallowed because the man had pleaded guilty from the start. He had admitted the offence on 22nd November, three months before the hearing had taken place. The case attracted very wide publicity in the newspapers and as a result of that publicity, on 21st February—that is, two days later—the Lord Chancellor's Department wrote a letter to the colonel asking whether the report in the newspapers of what he said during the hearing was substantially correct He replied that the report was substantially correct. Upon that his name was removed from the Commission of the Peace.
Now, it might be argued that the words the colonel used were certainly more soldierly than judicial, and were not words which should have been used by the chairman of the bench; that they might indicate that a magistrate had no

intention of carrying out the law and that he placed himself above the law. If that were the case, clearly he would be unfit to remain on the bench and ought to be removed. I am not here to justify the words, but I am here also to point out that, although he used these words to condemn the Act itself and the wording of the Act, he administered the Act faithfully. He carried out the provisions of the Act and a fine and a disqualification were imposed.
If one is to look at his state of mind, one looks not only at his choice of words but at what he did. The House may contrast that with another case in a neighbouring county. It was a similar case—I am not fully aware of the facts—where the bench, despite the evidence, improperly dismissed the case. Upon a case being stated and a hearing by the Lord Chief Justice, he described that bench as a contumacious bench and the case was remitted for conviction. But they said nothing—they did the wrong thing, but said nothing. As far as I know, they have not been removed from the Commission of the Peace.

Mr. Leslie Hale: When was that?

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Quite recently. But here the man who did the right thing but said possibly the wrong thing—I am not justifying the language used—has been removed from the Commission of the Peace. About the words themselves, although I do not justify the words in the form in which they were used, when Parliament provides for these absolute penalties, allowing no discretion to benches to deal with special cases such as this case, which did not merit these very severe penalties, it does become a matter upon which a bench is entitled to comment in proper terms. They are entitled to draw the attention of Parliament to it.

Mr. Hale: I do recollect a case some years ago when a court, after a stated case, was described by the Court of Criminal Appeal as "contumacious" and was ordered to pay personally the costs of the appeal. That was an appeal from the Market Bosworth magistrates. It seems to me that, when the hon. and learned Member says the magistrate administered the Act faithfully, all he did was to do the very minimum he had to do. All that was done here was to pro-


tect the court against the possibility of an appeal and of such an order, but to take every other step to bring the law into contempt.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: With great respect, that is not what he did. He was drawing attention to the penalties which, in the special circumstances of this case, were far too severe. He may have stated that point in language not sufficiently restrained, but he carried out the law, and carried it out faithfully. In these circumstances, this is a matter of considerable public importance. It is important not only to the magistrate concerned, but I understand that the Magistrates' Association is very much concerned about it. It is a matter of great public importance that a bench should possess independence.

1.45 a.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is a matter of importance. Perhaps I might, at the outset, make one or two observations of a general kind on the circumstances before I refer to the particular facts of the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman has brought to our notice. There are, I venture to think, three freedoms in our constitutional practice which it is absolutely vital to maintain. Only one concerns this matter. These freedoms are the freedom of the two Houses of Parliament from control by the Executive: the freedom of the judiciary, and in this I include holders of magistracies as well as holders of higher office, from interference or control by the executive or Parliament: and the freedom of the Press from control by executive, by Parliament or, except in these two laws, by the judiciary.
In a constitution such as ours, it would be exceedingly easy to get a collision between one or other of the three great institutions of a democratic society. The reason why these collisions do not occur is that there is in our unwritten and flexible constitution a mutual recognition of the existence of these various freedoms as being necessary to our constitutional system and a clear understanding on the part of all concerned of the sphere in which each freedom operates. It is abundantly clear that the freedom of Parliament and the freedom of the judiciary

within their respective spheres depend on a certain degree of mutuality. If those who hold judicial office were to take upon themselves in that capacity to criticise Parliament and the merits of Parliamentary Measures, or to allow their administration of statute law to be affected by political considerations about what they thought of a particular statute, then Parliament would obviously be tempted to encroach on the freedom enjoyed by the now independent judiciary. That kind of encroachment or collision does not happen in our constitution because, as a general rule, those holding judicial office know it is their duty to apply and administer the law as it stands, and not to try to alter it or criticise it when Parliament has made it, except to call attention to faulty draftsmanship.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman describe as within that formula what Mr. Justice Harman said last Thursday—that the National Health Service Act was a miracle of ineptitude?

The Attorney-General: Mr. Justice Harman was criticising the drafting of the National Health Service Act. He was saying, as I understand it, having read his judgment in the newspapers, that the Act did not achieve the purpose Parliament intended. He was not criticising the policy or the merits, but the drafting of the Act. The language which the learned judge used to make his criticism was a matter for the learned judge to select. There are numerous authorities for the general principle that judges or justices, or any persons exercising judicial office, must not question the policy of Parliament or criticise the Statutes it passes on their merits. Sir John Marriot said:
An English court may hold the opinion that in enacting a particular measure the legislature acted with conspicuous folly, but any such opinion they must keep to themselves. It is no part of their duty to express it, still less to act upon it.
These are the general principles which ought to govern the action of those holding judicial office of that kind.
What, then, did Colonel Delmé Davies Evans do? He was sitting, as has been said, as the chairman of the bench of justices which had before it a motorist who had pleaded guilty to what is usually


regarded as a black market offence under the Motor Spirit Regulation Act, 1948. He said, according to the newspapers—he agreed that he was accurately reported—
We think the way this Act is worded is a regular scandal. We do not call it British. We call it a very evilly-worded Act. We must fine you something.
He announced a fine of 1s. He disallowed the advocate's fee and the analyst's fee, both of which were necessary to the proper prosecution of the offence. It would have been quite impossible, and in my view quite wrong, for the police to have acted on an admission which the motorist made at the time which he might very well have denied making later on. They were bound to have an analyst and an advocate in order, if the case came to be contested before the justices, to be able to prove the case. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) will, I am sure, be the first to agree with me that if they had not been prepared to prove the case when it came before the justices, they would have been the first people to be criticised by Colonel Davies Evans.
Colonel Davies Evans, it seemed to the Lord Chancellor, consequently made it quite clear, while he was sitting on the bench and adjudicating as chairman of the justices, not only that he disapproved in the strongest possible terms of the policy of the Measure which had recently been passed by Parliament, but that he did not intend to enforce it. The fine of a derisory amount of 1s. was not expressed at all as being imposed on account of any special mitigating features such as the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to, and the refusal to allow costs or the advocate's fee seemed to my noble Friend to indicate that Colonel Davies Evans was claiming a freedom not to enforce enactments the policy of which he disliked. My noble Friend acted on what was said and done by Colonel Davies Evans in court, but out of court Colonel Davies Evans went even further. According to the newspapers—and he has never sought to deny that he was accurately reported in these matters——

Mr. Hopkin Morris: He makes no admission that the report is accurate.

The Attorney-General: On the other hand, he has never made any denial that it is accurate——

Mr. Blackburn: How does my right hon. and learned Friend know?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member can take it from me that there has been considerable correspondence between Colonel Davies Evans and my noble Friend on this matter and that he has never made any denial that he was correctly reported when he was said to have told a reporter:
It is a most disgraceful Act. If a man is caught with red petrol, punish him, but do not immobilise his car with the possibility of further unknown penalties. Under the Act, if a man whose car is immobilised tries to sell it, the Government is entitled to half the selling price. I think it is perfectly disgraceful. If we are going to get legislation of that sort, I am not going to play.
Whether he said that or not after the court proceedings does not perhaps matter very much, because he had made it sufficiently evident by what he said in court and by the action which he took in court, not only in imposing a derisory fine but in refusing proper costs to the prosecuting authority, that he was not going to play.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: As to the derisory element in the fine, he did not express his view about the determination of the fine because of the special circumstances which I outlined.

The Attorney-General: If that is so, it is a little unfortunate that Colonel Davies Evans, when imposing the fine, did not use language to make that clear. The language he used, and admitted using, was:
We call it disgraceful. We must fine you something. We will fine you 1s.
That is what he said.
From time immemorial it has been the duty of the Lord Chancellor, in the name of the Crown, to appoint and dismiss justices. They hold office during pleasure and it is his responsibility to dismiss them in an appropriate case. In practice, he never does dismiss justices except in a case of inability or misbehaviour, to use the words which Parliament used as recently as 1934 in defining a similar power which the Lord Chancellor has in regard to the dismissal of county court judges. I take it that the word "inability" requires no explanation. Cases of misbehaviour usually relate to misbehaviour out of court—disgraceful behaviour of


one kind or another—and, of course, they are very infrequent.
My noble Friend would never dream of dismissing a justice simply because he made an honest mistake in a particular case or because he had exercised a discretion in a wrong or foolish way. There are many cases in which justices may decide quite properly, in the exercise of their discretion, that because of mitigating circumstances only a nominal penalty should be imposed or, indeed, that there should be no penalty apart from the automatic penalty which may follow from the conviction; and where they decide on the merits of the case, because of mitigating circumstances, my noble Friend would never dream of substituting his discretion for the discretion of the justices, nor would he dismiss a justice merely because of some isolated and temperate criticism of the policy of an Act of Parliament.
But this is not such a case. If the Lord Chancellor is satisfied, as he was here—and it must be for the Lord Chancellor alone to judge—that a justice has allowed his dislike of the policy of an Act of Parliament to influence his judicial administration of that Act, then my noble Friend is bound to regard the matter as one of great seriousness, going to the whole root of the functions of justices, and to dismiss him. Justices are not controlled by the Executive and they will not be controlled or fettered in any way in their administration of the law. They will, I am sure, be the first to realise that a condition of their own freedom in the administration of the law is that they do not encroach on the responsibilities of Parliament for making the law. Criticism of the policy of Parliament is a matter for politicians, for the public and for the Press, but for those who accept the responsibility of discharging judicial functions to use the bench as a platform for criticism of that kind would very quickly destroy the reputation for impartiality which the bench in this country enjoys and might very easily lead them, as Colonel Davies Evans in fact led himself, into departing from their duty of administering justice according to the law. In those circumstances, my noble Friend felt he was compelled to take the action that he took.

1.58 a.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I feel that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General has dealt with this matter this evening in a reasonable spirit, but I think he ought to know that there are many people who will look upon a matter of this kind with anxiety because it is, of course, the fact that this Act of Parliament is evilly worded indeed. It is about the only Act of Parliament on our statute under which the benefit of the doubt goes to the prosecution and not to the accused, and that was admitted by the Attorney-General during the passage of this Act in the House. Unfortunately for Colonel Evans, he was not referring to that when he made the remarks, and I am bound to say I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) that I do not think the remarks were in any way justified. I do not think for one moment, however, that in referring to these remarks the Attorney-General has made out his case this evening. He said the words were a criticism of the policy of the Act. But the words, which he read out, were as follows:
We think that the way this Act is worded is a regular scandal.
To refer to the way the Act is worded is not to refer to the policy of the Act. The Attorney-General knew perfectly well that he had a bad case as far as the words used by the learned justice were concerned, and that is why he produced these remarks which are completely and utterly indefensible.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member has misquoted. He was not referring to any question of drafting. It was clear, and ought to be clear to the hon. Member if he reads what the learned justice said, that he was referring to the policy of the Act in automatically disqualifying the car—"We think the way this Act is worded—it says your car has to be out of action for 12 months—is a regular scandal."

Mr. Blackburn: The policy of the Act was designed to prevent the black market in petrol. It is grossly unfair to Colonel Davies Evans to say he was against the policy of the Act. I took the view at the time that it is wrong to put down an absolute and automatic suspension for 12 months whatever may happen, having regard to the fact that there may be an


innocent explanation. In view of the subsequent remarks which the magistrate made, I feel that the Lord Chancellor may be right in his decision, and I am not quarrelling about the merits of the decision. I hope this House will always be anxious to see that members of the judiciary are not dismissed by the Executive without the greatest possible pains to discover that the dismissal was necessary and justified.

2.2 a.m.

Mr. Maude: The matter that has been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is a matter of concern, and I listened anxiously to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in reply. I cannot help saying that I think it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) allowed a suggestion to arise, as it may appear in the Press tomorrow, as though there really was some justification for this magistrate's remarks, which were quite sufficient to cause the Lord Chancellor to make inquiry. It was not a question of how to deal with the Act, which was bad enough in itself, but it was very bad, in my view, to impose a derisory penalty.

Mr. Blackburn: rose—

Mr. Maude: Obviously a penalty of 1s. was derisory. It is fantastic to say it was not. I understand that the magistrate was given an opportunity to deny what was said in the Press, and that he said, as I took it down from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, "I am not going to play," which seems to me outrageous. He had no right to say anything of the sort. In these circumstances, what is to be done about a magistrate who behaves in this way? It seems to me that the great glory of the Bench, however little the light shines sometimes, and however brightly in other quarters, the real glory of it is that it does in fact loyally back up the decisions of Parliament. In that I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen shares with other hon. Members the feeling that justice was done.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes past Two o'Clock.